Concept of better Staff-Community interaction.

General Discussion related to the Plazma Burst game series!

Re: Concept of better Staff-Community interaction.

Postby mokaal » 28 November 2020, 07:38

From my point of view:

Election system won't be that much effective other than the old system, but I really believe that in election system, the voters are staffs, and the candidates are the people who passes every requirements of staff team, in the same time, staffs should choose only one candidate who think they're the best as well as being trustworthy, if the voters were any random PB users, they can choose anyone, even someone who isn't even known to the community which increases doubts and suspicious.

If you believe that the election system is the best way to avoid staff team abuse, I don't think it will work in a matter of a way either, instead, Eric should do something about the staff team from the inside, as well as admins to investigate on what's happening inside the staff team to see if there is any abuse or suspicious activity from the staff team.



Conclusion:

I don't see that there should be any change in the staff team, as well as that I don't see any abuse from the staff team, despite some players complaining that they're getting unfair punishments, as well as clan member/founder complaining about staff team extending the situation to an entire clan not the responsible only.

Hope you understand.
Plazma Burst 2 had its moments,

let it rest peacefully among the legendary flash games.
User avatar
mokaal
Advanced Usurpation Soldier [150]
 
Posts: 182
Joined: 11 March 2016, 13:31
Location: Egypt

Re: Concept of better Staff-Community interaction.

Postby paulstin » 29 November 2020, 01:14

some of the pb2 staff do abuse there power. i know this, i have copies of some of their nasty messages on file.lol. some of them would love to ban me, and are very anti DARK CLAN. and some of them dont even bother to help the game, they dont seem that interested, i think its a case of them "being to good for the likes of us"

BUT there are some good mods, who do make a effort, and they are good staff members, who try there best to help. What PB2 has now, in the case of its staff team, is the best it can do, as this is a not a very active game, Its very hard to find staff,

A staff member should be neutrel, open minded, have experience of the game, they do not have to have a high skill in playing, but just know about the game, and to find such players takes time, as they have to be observed over time, to see if they are capable of doing the job, and to see there general attitude in game,

Electing players to be staff is a very bad idea, as the "winners" would be players who get the most votes, imagine me being elected as a staff member, there would be a uproar, and quite rightly so, i am acting leader of the biggest clan, so you can safely assume, most of the DARK CLAN members would vote for me, and i would get a lot of votes,

a Plazma Burst world with me as a staff member would be the rest of the players worst nightmare, with me doing constant global announcements of DARK CLAN is best, JOIN DARK CLAN etc, and DARK CLAN logos plastered all over the maps and bases, lol,
So the system we have now, is the best you can get at this point in time.

paulstin
Usurpation Soldier [50]
 
Posts: 74
Joined: 9 October 2013, 20:14

Re: Concept of better Staff-Community interaction.

Postby Tortoise » 29 November 2020, 06:08

There isn't really any need to change things up, and we definitely don't need a popularity contest. Being liked by everyone isn't Tempus' job. Tempus is here to keep y'all internet weirdos in check make sure nobody posts child pornography in Around the Campfire.
https://youtu.be/0c1u5zspRzA
User avatar
Tortoise
Android T-01187 [200]
 
Posts: 205
Joined: 13 October 2015, 19:57
Location: My life is a Chuck Tingle novel.

Re: Concept of better Staff-Community interaction.

Postby mokaal » 29 November 2020, 06:22

paulstin wrote:some of the pb2 staff do abuse there power. i know this, i have copies of some of their nasty messages on file.lol. some of them would love to ban me, and are very anti DARK CLAN. and some of them dont even bother to help the game, they dont seem that interested, i think its a case of them "being to good for the likes of us"

BUT there are some good mods, who do make a effort, and they are good staff members, who try there best to help. What PB2 has now, in the case of its staff team, is the best it can do, as this is a not a very active game, Its very hard to find staff,

A staff member should be neutrel, open minded, have experience of the game, they do not have to have a high skill in playing, but just know about the game, and to find such players takes time, as they have to be observed over time, to see if they are capable of doing the job, and to see there general attitude in game,

Electing players to be staff is a very bad idea, as the "winners" would be players who get the most votes, imagine me being elected as a staff member, there would be a uproar, and quite rightly so, i am acting leader of the biggest clan, so you can safely assume, most of the DARK CLAN members would vote for me, and i would get a lot of votes,

a Plazma Burst world with me as a staff member would be the rest of the players worst nightmare, with me doing constant global announcements of DARK CLAN is best, JOIN DARK CLAN etc, and DARK CLAN logos plastered all over the maps and bases, lol,
So the system we have now, is the best you can get at this point in time.


I halfy agree with Paulstin's opinion, you actually reminded me of a former staff who abused and gave unfair punishments " Lazy " or " Kazy " I remember that time when I was in PR
Plazma Burst 2 had its moments,

let it rest peacefully among the legendary flash games.
User avatar
mokaal
Advanced Usurpation Soldier [150]
 
Posts: 182
Joined: 11 March 2016, 13:31
Location: Egypt

Re: Concept of better Staff-Community interaction.

Postby xElijah » 29 November 2020, 15:22

@Mingo1, welcome to the discussion. Thanks for attending:
Spoiler: Show More
mingo1 wrote:I agree that a lot of our team doesn't fit the ideal image of a staff member. Staff are talking about this kind of stuff behind the scenes, especially in wake of PB3 - thanks for this post

:)

While I do appreciate that you show your personal care, your team has been making the same promises for many years, yet there aren't many changes, which shows that you don't care too much really because there are only "talks" and nothing else. So I have doubts that things will change in PB3 and you don't just continue feeding people with promises.


@Phsc, thank you once again for sharing your doubts and concerns about the system. I'm glad there are people out there who care to spend some of their time to express their opinion in the most open and full way. I hope I didn't make too many mistakes this time:
Spoiler: Show More
phsc wrote:Eric does care about what people say but not when it comes to a system like this or when it takes people he trusts, and I believe Tempus is one of them, I think you'd require an absurd amount of people to complain about the system and even then, Eric probably I think would not follow this system suggestion and instead go for something else, but Eric is someone who seems to not punish or take people out, he might talk to it with Tempus and such and make his conclusions, even with supports for ideas and such often he has not changed his mind in some things, just look at the netcode, map approval, hell I am pretty sure Eric gets a message at least every week talking about removing stryde-sniper.

Eric may or may not agree to certain idea, understandable, speculative.

phsc wrote:Yes, you criticize a system by saying how it may fail, you do not assume the best situation, you might mention something like the nirvana fallacy, but it can also be inverted, you just assume things will work out, and you ahve to always look at the worst situation, the case where it all may fail, because that is how you find flaws in systems, of course you do not assume the absurd like "what if a black hole appears inside of earth, what would government do, huh?" or like "what if Eric Gurt is shot, what would this staff leader do, continue PB2.5???", that is just ridiculous and that is when the nirvana fallacy is applied, but considering that things might just not work perfectly is completely valid, I am negative and being negative in this is right, the general point of the discussion is if the system is better than the current one, I think that a democracy would start out better and then very likely go bad, just like most democracies, you might say "there are good democracies", I disagree because I think democracy is a very, very bad system that is often capable of being carried by other things, such as free markets, but here is the thing, if your system requires people to be competent and good and all, then why not simply... just the current team? may I mention that with the current system we supposedly only need one person to do a good job, the administrator that picks the other staff, in this case Tempus, just put like Nyove in there (not going to happen but kind of a way to show what I mean) and the system should work, why add a bunch of other steps, with a bunch of systems that might just make so things may go wrong? also, about real life ones, if you take out the democracy and add literally any system with the leader behind it, it would pretty much be better, just saying, also may I mention that Venezuela was once a "democracy", and Brazil has been a democracy for a long time and we did get some of the worst presidents I've ever seen elected, and many of them did start good, many of them did show potential, just read about Getúlio Vargas, Fernando Collor, Lula and Dilma, and well to an extent Bolsonaro, just to mention some, casual reminder that bad person germany was once a democracy, see the issue? democracy is a system that can easily be abused by the worst, it is pretty much the perfect system to give power to psychopaths, there is also more but again I mention Democracy: The God That Failed by Hans-Hermann Hoppe and The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich Hayek, also here is the thing, often times the reason a system work is not because of the system but because of what surrounds it, I think democracy is a good case of showing how the government generally sucks mostly in a democracy, but stuff like the free markets allow society to function, in quite weird ways because democracy and free markets = crony capitalism which is like one of the worst systems ever and somehow society works based on this.

The election system requires future administrators to be competent, true. The reasons why I don't want to leave things as is now because I don't think the current team is competent. You may like the current team, I don't. That's the difference between us. There are some good people though, I admit. I don't like that Tempus doesn't care if his team member is being offesnive and unprofessional at times which is why I want different people to be in charge. Right now criticizing Tempus won't make him put more pressure on his team, force them to be kind, because he is busy and doesn't care much. The new administrator would have to deal with his team issues asap if he doesn't want to carry risks of reputation losses. If we put Nyove or someone else as administrator the current system may work good at first, but what if later on he will become worse as a person? Nothing lasts forever. We will be back to square one, but with Nyove being criticized for incompetence and not Tempus. With the election system we will have a possibility to replace the administrator who became worse with someone who we currently think is nice and more suitable for the position. I want the system to be based on people's current opinion and situation rather than on one lifelong team or person (Tempus/Nyove/others). I don't want to talk about real life politics or people, so let's just end this topic and stick to PB2.

phsc wrote:And now we get to another problem of democracy, this one was more common back then but still kinda is, I will actually use examples, I am from the Workers Party (in Brazil known as PT), if you vote for me I will give poor people money, straight up that, turns out that the poor people vote them! ok, this seems... fine right, just leftist measures, now lets go back like 100 years ago to coronelism and the weirdass early brazilian democracy, so back then it worked like this, "you vote on me or you get shot", then it slowly became "you vote on me and you get some direct material gain", the issue with this is that, first, as I have said, the most effective method of staying in power is not doing what people want you to do to create demand, this seems quite dumb but this is how the brazilian Workers Party had power for 14 years, and this is how most politicians operate, so lets take an exaple, take paulstin, he probably would not pass the criteria, but imagine a DARK CLAN member might, imagine some generic more apt for the position DARK CLAN member, I mean I was in DARK CLAN so that can be me, I can tell for every single DARK CLAN person to vote on me, pausltin goes around them and such, for them to help me, now lets say I leave DARK CLAN, I still have a community and can still help the community, see the issue? also this checking maturity thing allows for even more corruption, just like in older brazilian democracy where only the upper classes could vote, also no women as well, so it always gave an extreme focus to their issues, not the issues of more simplistic people, in PB2 maybe a big issue for the more simple player is toxicity ingame, but the forum-discord mature people probably do not play the game a whole lot and might overlook the issue, see the problem? it is still about staff-community interaction, also, imagine PB2.5/3 drops, and there is an increase in the playerbase, how would this work out? checking every single person who wants to vote, considering that maybe the game might have an older playerbase since older players who left could come back, that would be hell, also people can straight up try to fake it, lie, and see, what is the real difference betwen the current system where staff individually votes if someone should join the team or not and Tempus gives them a pass or not, to the system you are proposing, the mature people vote and some elector/electors say if they pass or not, almost the same, slowly and slowly the system gets more democratic and closer to how it works, but it seems like it would work out more because you use Nyove and Ditzy or whatever as examples.

Maturity check of a voter is sure not the most safe, fair or pure system, but it will help to prevent the situation where some clan member or clan leader can use his authority to make immature people of his clan to vote for him and win an election. I wouldn't call it "upper class". I would call it "experienced class" or something as it would consist of people who played multiplayer for certain amount of time, made certain amount of maps of certain quality, made certain amount of quality posts and such, didn't register an account yesterday. It's not an elite or upper class. These are just people who are not new, not immature, not inexperienced. Judging would sure be based on personal subjective opinion of the elector, but I have nothing against it. And we can replace the elector if something clearly wrong happens during the election. All their actions will be seen by the public. Nothing will be secretive. Everyone will know who voted for who, who counted and how, other info. The quality bar for the voters won't be too high, but it would be on certain level that is enough to classify someone as a mature voter. If someone uses forum just to post memes and freepost, he won't be classified as a voter, simple. It would be hard to overlook the issue like toxicity in game for a discord mature user because one of the requirements for the voter is to play certain amount of time in certain period (discussable). In short: the voter should know the community if he wants to vote for the community. The election system can be launched in PB3 when we have enough people classified as voters. The checking won't be too hard imo and it would happen only within PB3 current community with current posts/plays/maps/etc, and again the criteria is discussable.

phsc wrote:I have issues with both Nyove and Ditzy actually, as much as I talk to them and like them, Ditzy might just pass for OCPD and I could see him maybe taking his opinion a bit over a few others when it comes to certain things, Nyove seems to care a lot about his image in this community, at first I even distrusted Nyove, and I am unsure of why he really does that, but I think that can be internal insecurity to some aspects, such are flaws that can be abused, I do think they are some of the best candidates, but I actually think the best ones are people who are kind of not that well known, but this is discussion for another time.
Ok so let me understand a thing, you want to change a system so it is better than the current one, just because it might work, but here is the thing, the current one does work! and the reason your system seems to superior is because of the people who pick who, not really because of the system, put Nyove Ditzy and Darkstar 1 as admins, and let them rework the staff team, suddenly it seems like the current system is better, doesn't it? I think you are too positive and kind of for some reason thinking that the function (the system) would inherently have better values, while I think they could very easily be worse, also, if the DARK CLAN example I mentioned in the last quote was bad, think of USF, or like GeNo or YRN, also, don't you think that limiting the electors, and considering that such a position will generally take the best PB2 has to offer, kind of limiting? we are limiting some of the most mature and helpful community members in this system as well, if they all become admins, they can still run the system and see who should join staff and such, but they also could do more practical work, and if you do not limit them, why are they electors and straight up not admins? what would differ? if they can only do stuff once people leave, you might as well just make the election straight up add more people to the team, but why not just allow them to pick people individually instead of some great leader with his mentality and team like normal democracies? let the best of the community control the community, I really don't see why PB2 should be a democracy instead of an autocracy, if the general idea behind the system is a democracy with an autocratic filter.

The electors will prevent any immature clan to become in charge of the game. And if some clan is mature he can be in charge imo. Of course in such case he won't be allowed to give any preference for his clan, advertise his clan or else. It all will be wrtitten down by the electors in the requirements for the candidates. And I still think that leaving the clan before participating and overall banning clans from politics would lower the chances of some wrong clan to rule the game and it would be just better. Sure some clan can do it secretly without the tags, but again, if the new administrator is bad, he will be removed and all voters are checked for maturity. Limiting the electors from being in staff is needed if we want to make sure the system is as democratic as it can be, so the voters pick who will rule the game without having like "alternative lifelong admins" who can play their own game and apply the rules how they want it. The elected administrator should select the program of staff-community interaction. Having alternative staffs will only make this program run worse because of mutual interruptions. And as I said earlier what if the elector just becomes worse with the mod ban power or just with time? I think giving the elector staff tools will only speed up such transformation because as you would say "power changes people". Besides I think "the best of the community" should probably look after others who are "less best" (the elected team), but not actually rule the game. It's even more important and responsible work than just sitting in chat banning people for posting sh*t and slowly coming to conclusion that "maybe I should leave staff because I'm bored/tired" or something like that.

phsc wrote:Ok, what people? like I was thinking about it, did the Tempus team pick some of the worst moderators? like just look at tehswordninja, what does he even do for the game other than talk shit to people on Discord? pretty much nothing, but here is a big issue I have, people often do not apply, Nyove almost did not, Ditzy and Hexagon/LoneWolf56 I believe also originally intended to not apply, I constantly told Darkstar to apply and I think others doing that also allowed that to happen, may I also mention I think the staff team now has a ton of nice people, I unironically like mrblake and I think he does a good job, Kiriakos might be a bit strange but I do not think he is negative for the team at the end of the day, Stryde getting in just shows that systems can be reworked and such, even tho I can see why people dislike him and how he moderates, and I do think that mr jaks nes and CreeperHunter55 were not good picks, but I really think that the general tendency over the last... year? years? has been positive, I actually don't hate staff anymore, this is a bit bizarre, I do think the system is not perfect but it seems to be getting better, just because of the people who got in, it is about people, not about the system, and it is a result of Tempus' work, this does not mean that they wouldn't join staff if it was someone else, and it could mean that some of the very negative people would not join, but this is even more for what I have been trying to say, it is about people and not the system, take Tempus away and put someone else, put Ditzy and wow, things probably seem better in your head? I do think Ditzy is a bit reluctant to changing some systems (my experience with him in Cult of USE), do you see what I mean? I think the new system would do more harm than help, and it seems better because of how positive you are over the people, while you can be even more sure if you just have it all static and not constantly changing in weird ways, and as I said, democracies start out great, and often go to crap later on.

Well, this again comes to "who likes/dislikes who" or "who approves/disapproves someone's work", so I'll skip this part.

phsc wrote:It is a limited number of people, if I were elected the ultimate ruler of PB2 I would invite you, and many others, but there would still be few I think could pass, also I'd rework half of the game, but this won't happen because I am not the best at keeping a good and likeable public image, probably because I say my opinions in direct ways instead of just sucking everyone's pizza sauce.
But here is the thing, Tempus is actually good for the team I would say, I actually applied for staff, and cancelled my application, Tempus is someone busy and such and I think this is the most negative part of him on the team, but he did talk to me, took some time, and he does seem to pick people even when staff seems quite agaisnt it, he even told me that often he does not really go completely by the judgement of other staff members, and I think this is good considering the staff team gives more voice to tehswordninja and mr jaks nes than to Ditzy and Nyove, but I agree, the current staff team is very static and I think this is the issue, dandamage just rejoined the team, why? what did dandamage even do? I actually for real don't know.

This gets a bit personal, but I think a man can say smart things and sound nice at the same time. It's not "s*cking everybody's pizza sauce". It's just being generally more friendly and trying to express your opinion in a polite and understandable/acceptable way to other people. That's what politicians are taught to do. And this language allows them to reach their goals very effectively.

phsc wrote:This does not require the rework of the entire system, and this is my biggest point, the current system is not bad, it is very autocratic and greatly requires good people at the top, I actually think that having more people and more discussion and making things more public would be the way to go, I would never be elected in your democratic system and I think I'd do a great job reworking PB2 and such, I actually have more chances under the current system even, people would just pick based on who they like and who they dislike, there are so few unbiased and actually rational people on ths community, that if the maturity check is too high, we just end up with the current system pretty much, but more limited with more bureaucracy for no reason.

I wouldn't say the maturity check is too high. Above average maybe? Also I think you could win the election if instead of overusing terms like "ad hominem" you started to use words and expressions that are understandable to people. And maybe just be more friendly in general to make people listen to you?

phsc wrote:Ok, let me tell you an story, back in the 90s, in Brazil, we had this charming dude called Fernando Collor de Mello, dude seemed real great, what did he do once he got to power? he pretty much took everybody's life savings to the government, and then he got impeached out, but people sitll did not get to see the money, nobody expected that, it was a complete pizza sauce move, but he did get to power, over an entire country, and this is quite modern, the 90s, if it was like the late 1800s, I could see this kind of shit happening, but really, the 90s? I think you are way too positive over this system, it opens up so many holes and it just makes it easier to be played, easier to be abused by someone cancerous than the current system, and yeah, some of the Code of Conduct is required for the game to be functional, but a lot of it is is not, and a lot of it is simply not well defined and extremely... confusing and strange, it is very hard to apply PB2s rules objectively.

I don't want to discuss real life politics. Let's stick to PB2 examples maybe?

phsc wrote:I don't have faith in people because people are by definition egoists, by the definition of "acting" (read Human Action by Ludwig von Mises), if your systems depends on trust and people being good and such, it is a bad system, and it can be abused, have you ever met a psychopath in your life? or a smart narcissist, see, people are not cool and you should not trust them, just pointless risks.

I would like to not discuss real life ideological stuff as well, sorry. The system depends on the electors system I would say and strict requirements for candidates and voters, the procedure of checking/counting. Eric and the electors are the only people who I think should be classified as "being good", others should be just higher than average.

phsc wrote:Ok, kind of a cliche example but, bad person germany, it was all slow, slowly changed, to the point the culture and the zeitgeist and such all changed, slowly, if you move your hand super fast close to a fire, it burns and you feel it, if it is slow, you feel it very slighty and get used to it, this is how bad person germany happened, and this is the biggest problem of democracy, the natural problem that people act for their own personal gain (by definition, you might misunderstand this but like, just go read Human Action, this is a bit complicated and people misunderstand, but every action by definition is the best one for you to take otherwise you would not act, as in what options you currently have, even if someone has a moral side and such, the moral side is still the best action and it is an egoistic move, because it is your morality and whatever you want, this is a bit complicated to understand at first, if you don't feel like reading it I can try to explain it but it might end being very long and confusing).

PB2 examples would be more convincing. In real world you can change many if not all things, but what aside from certain forum or chat rules you can change in PB2 to make things go down so dramatically?

phsc wrote:You know, I was reading the brazilian president list, and literally, nobody, nobody from this list, actually is good, the best out of all is probably deliciously exquisite pizza sauce Bolsonaro who unironically has flat earthers on his team, but does have people like Paulo Guedes and such who still are very limited, this is how bad democracy is, in the US I could see some of the early presidents, mostly the ones behind the consitution and such, Thomas Jefferson and such, but as time passes, we get to Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, not to mention the ones who justify wars, or are simply straight up dumb, but they did get to power, I see you don't want to talk about politics, but give me a period of 12 years with good presidents, I can easily give you 12 years of bad ones. May I mention my judgement mostly comes from my knowledge in economics, and this can et to an extremely long and exhaust debate you probably don't want to have and neither I do, but I want one example, the general tendency is what matters, and democracy sucks because of it.

Have you ever tried to search for a leader that does less sh*t than the ones you mention? I'm not talking about the perfect ones, but just better?

phsc wrote:Think of USF, GeNo, YRN, BoZ, simply having and owning a community, also literally, if you want people to be rational, the amount of people I've seen in this game who will accept being wrong if you point out a logical fallacy in their reasoning is so small, and this gets to points I mentioned earlier.

I think it would be better to ban clans from politics. But even if some clan will rule the game, what is ruling exactly? And what about the restrictions for their actions? They cannot just type in the code of conduct "BoZ members are gods and cannot be banned" because in this case Eric, the electors and community will do everything to kick them out and ban these people from elections permanently. Besides it's a huge reputation loss I think they would not really want to have. As for pointing out a logical fallacy, I doubt that most people even know what "logical fallacy" is. Like try to ask people if they know what "ad hominem" is and you will see.

phsc wrote:Why would the electors become lazy? you did not explain this, and I am curious, if they are competent and such, why would they become lazy in the current system? I really don't think that, ditzy already is lazy xd xd.

Maybe because power changes people? And maybe because the more work some person does the faster he gets tired and bored, which slowly makes him lazy and careless at the end?

phsc wrote:This is normal, I do think the general idea behind the system is good, but not the execution, I think that the people changing would be the best way to go, I believe that autocracy > democracy by far, not for real life, but for passion projects such as PB2 and such, I think that is the way to go, in this case, it is not really an autocracy because there are multiple people involved, but I think a council is the way to go, I actually think that testing out could work, but I think it is not really practical, in general, I think the most practical measure currently would be, all staff members having to reapply, with simply a poll for popular opinion over them on the website, nothing fancy, just something basic to start things out and see what people think, I don't think changing the entire system from night to day is the way to go because one flaw can damage things a lot, but I trust Eric, and if he ends up agreeing with this idea, good, but I still think this is not going to happen even if you have an absurd amount of support, unless it is truly absurd, like half of the community or something.
Also I did not comment on some points because I either agree or think it is pretty redundant/pointless to reply to them, also I made some quotes smaller so it looks like less of an absurd wall of text, tho it still is one.

Any improvement would be great.


@Chelyn, thanks for checking the topic. My reply:
Spoiler: Show More
chelyn wrote:Democracy is like a fruit that is fresh and sweet (just picked), then the fruit is sold by a trader at a separate price or according to the market. Initially the fruit was selling well because it had just been picked, but in a few days the buyers of the fruit began to decrease, because the trader had to bear the risk of competition between other fruit traders. He was getting more and more annoyed, and the longer he wanted to say lies the more it grew. In the end he said that the fruit he was selling was freshly picked, and very, very sweet, so that he found himself and its fruits a pleasure that was covered by a great loss. Such is democracy, at first a clean candidate, can say sweet, and promises, but over time the candidate finds a formidable match. He is getting crazy (starts to lie), then he spreads the issue of lying to his competitors, so that he can win. In the end the candidate won, with great distress to his competitor, what cruel slander.

Since there is an electors barrier for those who will be allowed to vote (voters should have X amount of hours played, X amount of maps of certain quality, X amount of smart quality posts on the forum, etc) I don't think it would be easy for picked mature voters to believe in obvious lies. Everything is checkable, not secretive. A candidate who is obviously a liar and bad immature person simply won't be allowed to participate in the election. And if he is allowed to participate, the voters will share the examples of his lies with each other and come to conclusion that they should not vote for him. I understand your concern, but I think the reason to worry is not that big. Thanks for sharing your opinion.


@Mokaal, I'm glad this topic got your attention. I replied to both of your posts:
Spoiler: Show More
mokaal wrote:From my point of view:

Election system won't be that much effective other than the old system, but I really believe that in election system, the voters are staffs, and the candidates are the people who passes every requirements of staff team, in the same time, staffs should choose only one candidate who think they're the best as well as being trustworthy, if the voters were any random PB users, they can choose anyone, even someone who isn't even known to the community which increases doubts and suspicious.

If you believe that the election system is the best way to avoid staff team abuse, I don't think it will work in a matter of a way either, instead, Eric should do something about the staff team from the inside, as well as admins to investigate on what's happening inside the staff team to see if there is any abuse or suspicious activity from the staff team.



Conclusion:

I don't see that there should be any change in the staff team, as well as that I don't see any abuse from the staff team, despite some players complaining that they're getting unfair punishments, as well as clan member/founder complaining about staff team extending the situation to an entire clan not the responsible only.

Hope you understand.

The voters will have to pass certain maturity check by the group of electors from the electoral college. The voters should have X amount of time spend in game, X amount of maps of certain quality, X amount of "smart" posts on the forum and such. It would be people like me and you, but not some random PB2 guest, so don't worry about it. The election cadidate will have to pass the check of the electors as well. He should be mature, smart, experienced in game, known in the community. It would be someone you like and respect, not some bad guy. The electors would be picked from the most trustworthy and experienced people. They would keep the candidates and the voters in check. Currently Eric doesn't really care what happens inside the staff team. He is quite distand and that's the problem. I think it would be better if the community took more participation in such "control". There are some quite incompetent and offensive staffs out there. You might just haven't suffered from their actions yourself. Yet. Anyway, thank you very much for sharing your thoughts with me. I hope we will be able to think of a system that will benefit everyone the best way possible.
mokaal wrote:I halfy agree with Paulstin's opinion, you actually reminded me of a former staff who abused and gave unfair punishments " Lazy " or " Kazy " I remember that time when I was in PR

Kazy, if she actually was a bad moderator, was selected or at least kept in the team with the approval of Tempus who is in charge of hiring and demoting staff members. I think with the new election system the elected administrator would not hire a moderator who can potentially do wrong things because if he does, he will lose his reputation among the community and won't be able to win the next election.


@Paulstin, didn't expect to hear such honest and self-critical things from you. Thanks for sharing your opinion. Though I think I have something to clarify:
Spoiler: Show More
paulstin wrote:some of the pb2 staff do abuse there power. i know this, i have copies of some of their nasty messages on file.lol. some of them would love to ban me, and are very anti DARK CLAN. and some of them dont even bother to help the game, they dont seem that interested, i think its a case of them "being to good for the likes of us"

BUT there are some good mods, who do make a effort, and they are good staff members, who try there best to help. What PB2 has now, in the case of its staff team, is the best it can do, as this is a not a very active game, Its very hard to find staff,

A staff member should be neutrel, open minded, have experience of the game, they do not have to have a high skill in playing, but just know about the game, and to find such players takes time, as they have to be observed over time, to see if they are capable of doing the job, and to see there general attitude in game,

Electing players to be staff is a very bad idea, as the "winners" would be players who get the most votes, imagine me being elected as a staff member, there would be a uproar, and quite rightly so, i am acting leader of the biggest clan, so you can safely assume, most of the DARK CLAN members would vote for me, and i would get a lot of votes,

a Plazma Burst world with me as a staff member would be the rest of the players worst nightmare, with me doing constant global announcements of DARK CLAN is best, JOIN DARK CLAN etc, and DARK CLAN logos plastered all over the maps and bases, lol,
So the system we have now, is the best you can get at this point in time.

Due to the new election system having so called "electors" from the "electoral college" all voters and candidates will have to pass certain "maturity check". The electors will check how much time the voter and candidate played the game, how many quality and smart posts they made, how many maps they have and of which quality, other information. So this check would mean that immature and just not suitable people would not be allowed to vote or participate in the election as a candidate which means that mass support of some clan leader won't ensure he will win the election. It would be about quality of the voter, but not their count. I hope I was able to explain my point, but if you have any questions please ask. Thank you again for your post.


@Tortoise, I see your point, but I don't think I agree with it. Thank you for your time:
Spoiler: Show More
Tortoise wrote:There isn't really any need to change things up, and we definitely don't need a popularity contest. Being liked by everyone isn't Tempus' job. Tempus is here to keep y'all internet weirdos in check make sure nobody posts child pornography in Around the Campfire.

It's not a "popularity contest" because there will be the trusted and experienced electors who will check if the voter and candidate are mature enough or not which means if the voter does not match certain criteria to vote (X amount of time played, X amount of quality forum posts, X amount of maps of certain quality, etc) he will not be allowed to vote, and if the candidate does not match the requirements he will not be allowed to participate in the election. So it's more about quality of the voter and of the candidate, not popularity or count. Tempus himself is responsible for many bad choices and mistakes while picking and working with picked staff members, so I believe if the election system is chosen, we will have a team of more friendly and professional at the same time people, which would be overall better for the community and community-staff interaction. Thank you for sharing your opinion. I hope I was able to change some of your views, but if not, sorry.
User avatar
xElijah
Usurpation Soldier [50]
 
Posts: 96
Joined: 3 October 2020, 15:43

Re: Concept of better Staff-Community interaction.

Postby phsc » 29 November 2020, 18:48

xElijah wrote:@Phsc, thank you once again for sharing your doubts and concerns about the system. I'm glad there are people out there who care to spend some of their time to express their opinion in the most open and full way. I hope I didn't make too many mistakes this time

There are few people who are open to that, pretty much me and the ones in Cult of USE and that is it, quite sad, but believe it or not I think PB2 is actually pretty great in this aspect.

The election system requires future administrators to be competent, true. The reasons why I don't want to leave things as is now because I don't think the current team is competent.

I did not say I think the current team is competent, I said it is more competent than it was in the past, I think I did not make this that clear, in the past I really, really hated the staff team, but currently I think that the team is getting better and better, many people who joined are friends of mine who I have been talking to a while and I think they are competent for the position and others I simply think they are good, but many, mostly older members, I think are very negative.
You may like the current team, I don't. That's the difference between us. There are some good people though, I admit.

I think that there is a tendency for the team to get better with the new people, because they do have some input on who joins the team and who does not, this kind of becomes a good cycle, I personally think that all of this can be solved by everybody who did not get in by applying in modern times having to reapply, I am pretty sure most of the cancerous ones would not be able to join the team.
I don't like that Tempus doesn't care if his team member is being offesnive and unprofessional at times which is why I want different people to be in charge. Right now criticizing Tempus won't make him put more pressure on his team, force them to be kind, because he is busy and doesn't care much.

I think that Tempus puts far too much value in experience as in pure time, I think many of the older staff members are inactive, and generally quite useless, and he does lack the time, but a thing I was thinking about, do people actually report the toxic people to him? the carcinomas of staff, I myself have been lately, or trying to, maybe something will happen? this could be kind of a tragedy of the commons scenario, everybody thinks someone is toxic and goes like "someone will report him", and nobody does, but I think with pressure changes might come, if they don't, I am truly unsure.
The new administrator would have to deal with his team issues asap if he doesn't want to carry risks of reputation losses. If we put Nyove or someone else as administrator the current system may work good at first, but what if later on he will become worse as a person? Nothing lasts forever.

I do think that the system needs to be updated and such, and having like Eric and etc pick them is the best way, but he is far too distant from the community, having a team of people to pick people will fall under the same issue, I think that generally it is important to have a system where those hardworking and competent can go up and those who are not can go down is the way to go, and this can be done under the current system, just promote people and just demote them, simple as that, who gets to choose that? maybe a council? all of the staff members? this will open up holes for corruption and such, but there is no way to fight agaisn't such, even if it was a democratic system that could happen, I think that having something more simplistic, such as a poll that constantly resets or whatever, "do you like the current staff team?" and people can vote or whatever, and if things go bad discussions are required and such, and if the discussions achieve nothing or all of that, without proper reasoning behind, then the team is changed, but the big issue, who gets to pick what? if the central authority can become corrupt, and the entire team also might, there is nothing to be done, I think that having multiple high leaders is better because it lowers the chance, this is why party systems and such exist in elections, so there has to be some kind of dissonance, but it often fails, I truly am unsure about how to solve this other than constantly changing people, but is democracy the way to go? I think people being able to vote on who they think could join the team is a great idea, but it is up for the team to decide, kind of a lighter version of democracy without so much bureaucracy and such, keeping parts of the current system, and the central leaders and staff members decide and such, internal voting and discussions, maybe have an internal democracy of sorts, just like many companies and such work like.

We will be back to square one, but with Nyove being criticized for incompetence and not Tempus. With the election system we will have a possibility to replace the administrator who became worse with someone who we currently think is nice and more suitable for the position. I want the system to be based on people's current opinion and situation rather than on one lifelong team or person (Tempus/Nyove/others). I don't want to talk about real life politics or people, so let's just end this topic and stick to PB2.

The issue is that the system you propose still has the issue where there is a central figure - or multiple - that can go wrong, and it is kind of natural to any system with leaders and such, even if it was Eric, what if he goes wrong? I've seen this happen in the past, game developers changing drastically and making extremely bad decisions that pretty much kill their career, I think the only way to solve this is to just give the power to the most competent, maybe 5 admins or something, who can be voted internally by the moderation team, and the moderation team/admins get to pick those suggested by the community, I am pretty sure that if the admins become Nyove, Ditzy, Hexagon/LoneWolf56, Darkstar 1 and maybe keep Kiriakos, things can work out pretty damn well, I am not agaisn't Tempus but as far as I know time is a big issue, this gets to another suggestion, instead of having older members and maybe some which do not work well under power positions and all, create some kind of council members that are not staff but can talk to staff and dialogue and recommend directly to them.
If some admin has to leave the team, another one is elected, internally I think works best because it makes it easier to see the true face of those in power, which is harder from the view of the common player, not to mention the logistics of a democratic system with all the ifs you mentioned, all the specific checks and such, might as well just create a small rank of those who can vote or something.

Maturity check of a voter is sure not the most safe, fair or pure system, but it will help to prevent the situation where some clan member or clan leader can use his authority to make immature people of his clan to vote for him and win an election. I wouldn't call it "upper class". I would call it "experienced class" or something as it would consist of people who played multiplayer for certain amount of time, made certain amount of maps of certain quality, made certain amount of quality posts and such, didn't register an account yesterday. It's not an elite or upper class. These are just people who are not new, not immature, not inexperienced. Judging would sure be based on personal subjective opinion of the elector, but I have nothing against it. And we can replace the elector if something clearly wrong happens during the election.

Well, it is a class that has properties generally considered superior to those who do not have such, so I think it fits "upper class", better than the system I mentioned, but if we take that in PB2 there is no power or money or status or anything, this is the closest it gets.

All their actions will be seen by the public. Nothing will be secretive.

This is by far my biggest issue with the current system, but I think it is a lot about leadership and higher command than the system itself, there seems to be no real formal rules on this.

Everyone will know who voted for who, who counted and how, other info. The quality bar for the voters won't be too high, but it would be on certain level that is enough to classify someone as a mature voter. If someone uses forum just to post memes and freepost, he won't be classified as a voter, simple.

I think that people can make memes and freepost on the forums but be capable of serious and logical discussion on a platform like Discord, I even have some examples, also many of the more mature and good staff users or people which are often considered mature and etc (a lot of them in Cult of USE) are very like funny and often share memes and make memes, Ditzy, Hexagon/Lonewolf56, darkstar, of course many of these do not only make memes, but one which I think has only shared memes here (and very rarely comments or posts) is zhen, who is an admin of Cult of USE who I really like because he often says basically nothing but sometimes out of nowhere writes a quite long message with very interesting and relevant points, and I really like that, but most of the time he just posts memes or says funny things, just an example.

It would be hard to overlook the issue like toxicity in game for a discord mature user because one of the requirements for the voter is to play certain amount of time in certain period (discussable). In short: the voter should know the community if he wants to vote for the community. The election system can be launched in PB3 when we have enough people classified as voters. The checking won't be too hard imo and it would happen only within PB3 current community with current posts/plays/maps/etc, and again the criteria is discussable.

Ok, now here is a wild suggestion, why don't these people join staff? if they are mature, capable of argumentation, experienced and such, they could help the team, I think a rework of the team's functions and such to make it easier for some people to join, maybe some who are often not that nice socially and such (like me) could join under a position that does not deal with that, while having people who might be socially skilled and such but not so rational or capable of discussion under others, this is just the basic idea without much thinking on how it could work exactly, but I think it works better.
If by playing you mean, ingame, I do not really think that is necessary, many probably would rather spend that time in other PB2 related actions or with the level editor and such, or simply singleplayer related material.

The electors will prevent any immature clan to become in charge of the game. And if some clan is mature he can be in charge imo. Of course in such case he won't be allowed to give any preference for his clan, advertise his clan or else. It all will be wrtitten down by the electors in the requirements for the candidates. And I still think that leaving the clan before participating and overall banning clans from politics would lower the chances of some wrong clan to rule the game and it would be just better.

The thing is, clans are rather arbitrary, the general idea behind a clan is a community, and you can have such without a clan, I am pretty sure that if I or any admin from Cult of USE applies to staff, most of the members of such server would think that is rather positive because they are in the server and believe we do a good job (many actually are staff!), same goes for BoZ leaders or just someone who owns a discord server or community (mingo?), and banning communities is complicated because there often is a lot of stuff going on in the shadows and such, and I think that for things to go bad, them being in the shadows and such is generally worse because... why hide something that is good and such?

Limiting the electors from being in staff is needed if we want to make sure the system is as democratic as it can be, so the voters pick who will rule the game without having like "alternative lifelong admins" who can play their own game and apply the rules how they want it.

THIS GETS TO A BIG ISSUE! Ok, why in oblivion would someone want to be part of the elector team and not staff then? just limit their powers? very few people would probably like that, and we are still taking away some of the most competent people of the community, but this actually is kind of a catalyst for corruption, if they hold no power and such, why not just try to pick or help the person who will do most of what you want to happen? what if it is for personal gain? feelings of being unable to do anything but holding a lot of indirect power often lead to this, the direct change, which is pretty much the same, but with that, the feeling of having no power and no real control, people can start to get emotional, maybe angry and such, sad, annoyied, I've seen this happen in the past in internal communities.

The elected administrator should select the program of staff-community interaction. Having alternative staffs will only make this program run worse because of mutual interruptions. And as I said earlier what if the elector just becomes worse with the mod ban power or just with time? I think giving the elector staff tools will only speed up such transformation because as you would say "power changes people". Besides I think "the best of the community" should probably look after others who are "less best" (the elected team), but not actually rule the game. It's even more important and responsible work than just sitting in chat banning people for posting sh*t and slowly coming to conclusion that "maybe I should leave staff because I'm bored/tired" or something like that.

Power changes people, the lack of power also changes people, being in a situation where you could have power (you have but it is indirect) makes it tempting because you see it, it is something you see it is possible, if you think something is impossible you don't go for it, but if it is and it is positive, generally you go for it. also, another idea, what about multiple elected people? this could create discussion over disagreements and such, and this in general could make the system better, the issue is the small playerbase.
Another thing I'd like to mention is that, what about the Code of Conduct? may I give you an example, there was a rule added not long ago about pretty much intellectual property in PB2, as in PB2 maps, nothing related to the game being viable or anything, this rule was an idea of Stryde, I am agaisn't it, I think this kind of thing which as far as I know is part of the Code of Conduct, should be the kind of thing discussed, maybe have the electors and admins discuss such? maybe another role just for that, this gets closer to more modern democracy, legislative, judicial and executive, a group of people write the laws (those smarter, with more knowledge, who do not need direct social interaction, me, you), those who apply the laws (those who do not really question their viability, can apply them in respectful ways (Kiriakos, Ditzy), and those who take care of the administration, such as running the democratic system itself (just respectful and social people? the mingo's and blake's of the system), and I think this is more solid than what you said, and more complicated, however just like in real life it still can be abused and corrupt, but I think that for PB2 this could work very well because of the distinction of the people and such and how nobody really has need for internal power in some aspects of the game and how intellectualy honest people seem to exist.

This gets a bit personal, but I think a man can say smart things and sound nice at the same time. It's not "s*cking everybody's pizza sauce". It's just being generally more friendly and trying to express your opinion in a polite and understandable/acceptable way to other people. That's what politicians are taught to do. And this language allows them to reach their goals very effectively.

Politicians are not really taught to be smart as in to create good systems or verify things in an epistemological way, they just need to get the votes, I think you see democracy in general in a way too positive way, maybe it is about where you might live or something, I agree, people can be smart and respectful at the same time, just look at like Immanuel Kant or whatever, I am not one of these, and it is quite easy to find flaws in people, this is just the biggest one I see in me.

I wouldn't say the maturity check is too high. Above average maybe? Also I think you could win the election if instead of overusing terms like "ad hominem" you started to use words and expressions that are understandable to people. And maybe just be more friendly in general to make people listen to you?

Well, here is the issue, people do not like being told they are wrong, even if there is justification, for some mystical reason people want to be magically right, instead of achieving being right, this is probably because it is comfortable and predictable to be right, and well with age and maturity people often go agaisnt that, but in PB2, people generally are very young, also I did try explaining what ad hominem is in the past but it often got ignored and such, and well, don't people have the curiosity/competence of simply searching "ad hominem" on Google? I actually think that my flaws show how a team of multiple people is kind of required, you can be good at at hing and bad at another.

I don't want to discuss real life politics. Let's stick to PB2 examples maybe?

There has never been a PB2 democracy before! so it gets hard to make criticism for a system that was never implemented without using real life examples of pretty much the same system.

I would like to not discuss real life ideological stuff as well, sorry.

Democracy is a real life ideology, I do think democracy would work better in PB2 than in real life, but I think some form of collective autocracy would work better.

PB2 examples would be more convincing. In real world you can change many if not all things, but what aside from certain forum or chat rules you can change in PB2 to make things go down so dramatically?

I already talked a bit about this, but lets try to talk about how things can go bad in PB2, not examples per se as in historical ones but situations for you to imagine, Stryde added the intellectual property rule, he might have done that because he thinks it is a good rule which is present in a ton of things and such, or he might have done that because he dislikes the stryde-sniper copies such as sfryde-sniper, this is just a small example, someone can change the approval system to benefit their friends/group (I don't think Stryde is doing this by the way!), someone can change the ranked system to benefit their friends/group, and infinite cases.

Have you ever tried to search for a leader that does less sh*t than the ones you mention? I'm not talking about the perfect ones, but just better?

Better and worse are inherently negative, rubber probably tastes better than crap, is rubber tasty? I do think there have been good leaders, but maybe under a different system they cold have been made better.

I think it would be better to ban clans from politics. But even if some clan will rule the game, what is ruling exactly?

I already explained why I think clans are kind of dead and a bit overspecific/arbitrary and how communities and such are a bigger problem, ruling would be applying the rules/creating the rules, you can ban someone for very little reason and give poor justification with the rules, and this gives me another idea, what about verification for the validity of bans and such by the team? is this even a thing? multiple staff members (if not all) must agree that someone has to be banned or something, of course the action might happen at first, but once feedback is given, the ban can be lifted or something, this all with justification and such (never going to happen with the current team by the way).
And what about the restrictions for their actions? They cannot just type in the code of conduct "BoZ members are gods and cannot be banned" because in this case Eric, the electors and community will do everything to kick them out and ban these people from elections permanently.

People can get very creative about how they change things, one change at a time, what about a small change to the approval system to get their map approved even if is not a good fit? that kind of stuff, I think for this the discussion within staff should be required and I know little about it, but as far as I know it is not.
Besides it's a huge reputation loss I think they would not really want to have. As for pointing out a logical fallacy, I doubt that most people even know what "logical fallacy" is. Like try to ask people if they know what "ad hominem" is and you will see.

It is just sad, I try to educate people but well, some just think they are inherently right and ignore logic (fun fact, tehswordninja once called me "irrational" for arguing mentioning that he was using fallacies and such and applying formal logic, while he had no justification for what he was saying at all, yeah, I am irrational).

Maybe because power changes people? And maybe because the more work some person does the faster he gets tired and bored, which slowly makes him lazy and careless at the end?

Well, power changes people making them lazy? I've never really seen this, this made me think of a thing, what about the tragedy of the commons if the team is quite big? like if there are 5 people and someone goes like "oh someone will do that", I think 5 is small, but for other aspects, maybe such as having many members without real differences betwen them, even tho they are different in their skills and such, kinda makes this happen at times?
What if the elector team is affected by this because of their indirect power? it still applies to them.

Any improvement would be great.
[/quote]
I gave some ideas and explained a few things better, remember the thing I said about thinking more about the system? it is kinda happening right now, good I guess, I still think this is a very utopic and out of touch with reality discussion, it is very unlikely any changes will happen, but Monstesquieu wrote on democracy decades before it was actually implemented, so who knows.

A quite funny thing, most replies made to this topic are made by people who either did not read it all (does not even have to be the replies), or did not understand it, and I think it really shows how few people actually pass some of the checks, many staff members have admitted to being lazy and without the capacity of reading long messages and such, which I think is literally, just a pure willpower check, unless time is an issue or something, but if time is an issue, what are you doing in the staff team?


Also quite unrelated but there is this anime called Ginga Eiyuu Densetsu which is about a democracy vs a monarchy, with some middle players like a more libertarian planet, also yes, it is futuristic and such, and it is from the 80s with an interesting artstyle and the soundtrack is mostly classical music (space battles with the 4th movement of Dvorak's 9th symphony playing is straight up amazing, also there is an absurd amount of characters, there are 2 (3 but the other one is bad and weird) movies, 110 episodes of the original series, with a gaiden one which has 28 episodes, if anyone is interested about this discussion and such and about political systems or administrative systems in a more casual way that is not so formal, I greatly recommend it, as it is one of my favorite animes.
A very small and quite obvious spoiler about why I think this is related.
Spoiler: Show More
The monarchy turns into an autocracy and I think it really shows the issues of all mentioned systems.
User avatar
phsc
Noir Lime [600]
 
Posts: 694
Joined: 27 July 2013, 13:58
Location: Brazil

Re: Concept of better Staff-Community interaction.

Postby xElijah » 30 November 2020, 17:56

@Phsc:
Spoiler: Show More
phsc wrote:I do think that the system needs to be updated and such, and having like Eric and etc pick them is the best way, but he is far too distant from the community, having a team of people to pick people will fall under the same issue, I think that generally it is important to have a system where those hardworking and competent can go up and those who are not can go down is the way to go, and this can be done under the current system, just promote people and just demote them, simple as that, who gets to choose that? maybe a council? all of the staff members? this will open up holes for corruption and such, but there is no way to fight agaisn't such, even if it was a democratic system that could happen, I think that having something more simplistic, such as a poll that constantly resets or whatever, "do you like the current staff team?" and people can vote or whatever, and if things go bad discussions are required and such, and if the discussions achieve nothing or all of that, without proper reasoning behind, then the team is changed, but the big issue, who gets to pick what? if the central authority can become corrupt, and the entire team also might, there is nothing to be done, I think that having multiple high leaders is better because it lowers the chance, this is why party systems and such exist in elections, so there has to be some kind of dissonance, but it often fails, I truly am unsure about how to solve this other than constantly changing people, but is democracy the way to go? I think people being able to vote on who they think could join the team is a great idea, but it is up for the team to decide, kind of a lighter version of democracy without so much bureaucracy and such, keeping parts of the current system, and the central leaders and staff members decide and such, internal voting and discussions, maybe have an internal democracy of sorts, just like many companies and such work like.

The issue is that the system you propose still has the issue where there is a central figure - or multiple - that can go wrong, and it is kind of natural to any system with leaders and such, even if it was Eric, what if he goes wrong? I've seen this happen in the past, game developers changing drastically and making extremely bad decisions that pretty much kill their career, I think the only way to solve this is to just give the power to the most competent, maybe 5 admins or something, who can be voted internally by the moderation team, and the moderation team/admins get to pick those suggested by the community, I am pretty sure that if the admins become Nyove, Ditzy, Hexagon/LoneWolf56, Darkstar 1 and maybe keep Kiriakos, things can work out pretty damn well, I am not agaisn't Tempus but as far as I know time is a big issue, this gets to another suggestion, instead of having older members and maybe some which do not work well under power positions and all, create some kind of council members that are not staff but can talk to staff and dialogue and recommend directly to them.
If some admin has to leave the team, another one is elected, internally I think works best because it makes it easier to see the true face of those in power, which is harder from the view of the common player, not to mention the logistics of a democratic system with all the ifs you mentioned, all the specific checks and such, might as well just create a small rank of those who can vote or something.

Ok, now here is a wild suggestion, why don't these people join staff? if they are mature, capable of argumentation, experienced and such, they could help the team, I think a rework of the team's functions and such to make it easier for some people to join, maybe some who are often not that nice socially and such (like me) could join under a position that does not deal with that, while having people who might be socially skilled and such but not so rational or capable of discussion under others, this is just the basic idea without much thinking on how it could work exactly, but I think it works better.

So what system do you propose exactly? I got lost while reading. Can you shortly describe step by step how it would work?

phsc wrote:I think that people can make memes and freepost on the forums but be capable of serious and logical discussion on a platform like Discord, I even have some examples, also many of the more mature and good staff users or people which are often considered mature and etc (a lot of them in Cult of USE) are very like funny and often share memes and make memes, Ditzy, Hexagon/Lonewolf56, darkstar, of course many of these do not only make memes, but one which I think has only shared memes here (and very rarely comments or posts) is zhen, who is an admin of Cult of USE who I really like because he often says basically nothing but sometimes out of nowhere writes a quite long message with very interesting and relevant points, and I really like that, but most of the time he just posts memes or says funny things, just an example.

I only said that the person shouldn't be classified as a voter if he uses forum only for memes and freeposting. If he posts smart stuff and memes at the same time it's okay.

phsc wrote:If by playing you mean, ingame, I do not really think that is necessary, many probably would rather spend that time in other PB2 related actions or with the level editor and such, or simply singleplayer related material.

How would the verified voter "know the community" if he doesn't spend enough time with the community to learn every single aspect of it? We would get into a situation that you described earlier where discord user doesn't know about toxicity in game.

phsc wrote:THIS GETS TO A BIG ISSUE! Ok, why in oblivion would someone want to be part of the elector team and not staff then? just limit their powers? very few people would probably like that, and we are still taking away some of the most competent people of the community, but this actually is kind of a catalyst for corruption, if they hold no power and such, why not just try to pick or help the person who will do most of what you want to happen? what if it is for personal gain? feelings of being unable to do anything but holding a lot of indirect power often lead to this, the direct change, which is pretty much the same, but with that, the feeling of having no power and no real control, people can start to get emotional, maybe angry and such, sad, annoyied, I've seen this happen in the past in internal communities.

It is the most imprtant part and the core of the election system. Considering that there will be a lot of "life" and "activity" around the election system and its events, I think it's a really big responsibility and big honor to be an elector, so I think there will be people who would want to join it. Maybe not for purely altruistic reasons, but at least for fame? "Hey look, that's Phsc, the elector!" - sounds pleasing, doesn't it? Don't forget the profile tag and name tag and other cool things they could have. Besides this job is generally less tedious because you don't have to sit whole day in chat banning people for p*rn. So it's a part-time job, interesting job, popular job. I think there will be people who would want to join it, believe me or not. And we don't really need many (maybe 3). It takes "best" people to join so I have doubts if they become villains really quickly, but even if they do, "helping" is considering illegal, and if players find out something it would mean that the electors will have to be replaced and all electors/admins/mods who knew about the "help" but didn't report it will be under big pressure as well which I think they wouldn't want to have. Direct power, indirect power, they can just ask to ban a rulebreaker and get a quicker response, they can suggest changes and be heard, they control the election and talk to people. That's all the power they really need to play the game and have fun if that's why they joined PB2 for. Besides they will have power to check logs, moderator panel, reports, private forum sections, bans info and etc to see if the team works properly. Isn't this some sort of power as well? Or they directly need the ban hammer to be happy?

phsc wrote:also, another idea, what about multiple elected people? this could create discussion over disagreements and such, and this in general could make the system better, the issue is the small playerbase.

How would it work exactly?

phsc wrote:Another thing I'd like to mention is that, what about the Code of Conduct? may I give you an example, there was a rule added not long ago about pretty much intellectual property in PB2, as in PB2 maps, nothing related to the game being viable or anything, this rule was an idea of Stryde, I am agaisn't it, I think this kind of thing which as far as I know is part of the Code of Conduct, should be the kind of thing discussed, maybe have the electors and admins discuss such? maybe another role just for that, this gets closer to more modern democracy, legislative, judicial and executive, a group of people write the laws (those smarter, with more knowledge, who do not need direct social interaction, me, you), those who apply the laws (those who do not really question their viability, can apply them in respectful ways (Kiriakos, Ditzy), and those who take care of the administration, such as running the democratic system itself (just respectful and social people? the mingo's and blake's of the system), and I think this is more solid than what you said, and more complicated, however just like in real life it still can be abused and corrupt, but I think that for PB2 this could work very well because of the distinction of the people and such and how nobody really has need for internal power in some aspects of the game and how intellectualy honest people seem to exist.

You mean rules 1.13.1 - 1.13.6? What do you not like about them? About the suggestion - sounds interesting, but I wouldn't overcomplicate the system without more solid reasons. Besides it's a bit hard to imagine how certain things would work in such system in theory and practice.

phsc wrote:I already talked a bit about this, but lets try to talk about how things can go bad in PB2, not examples per se as in historical ones but situations for you to imagine, Stryde added the intellectual property rule, he might have done that because he thinks it is a good rule which is present in a ton of things and such, or he might have done that because he dislikes the stryde-sniper copies such as sfryde-sniper, this is just a small example, someone can change the approval system to benefit their friends/group (I don't think Stryde is doing this by the way!), someone can change the ranked system to benefit their friends/group, and infinite cases.

The intellectual property rule is what I want to know more about. As for changing the approval system, how exactly would that work and what will prevent verified voters, who should be relatively experienced map makers due to the requirements, to notice such changes and take actions? How to change the ranked system?

phsc wrote:I already explained why I think clans are kind of dead and a bit overspecific/arbitrary and how communities and such are a bigger problem, ruling would be applying the rules/creating the rules, you can ban someone for very little reason and give poor justification with the rules, and this gives me another idea, what about verification for the validity of bans and such by the team? is this even a thing? multiple staff members (if not all) must agree that someone has to be banned or something, of course the action might happen at first, but once feedback is given, the ban can be lifted or something, this all with justification and such (never going to happen with the current team by the way).

If by ruling you mean applying/creating the rules then what is wrong with it if it's all checkable and controlled by the electors and the community? If some clan gets to power and abuses it - he gets kicked out. Simple. Staffs can see the ban reason and evidence like screenshots on profile page. On forum there are logs. In discord I don't know. I doubt they actually discuss it unless if there is a ticket from the banned person was received but even then they probably don't discuss it but just the moderator can give a second chance and lift the ban or say his no to the supplicant. Sure, more control over it would be great. Maybe even making the ban evidence and discussion visible to every user or is it too much?

phsc wrote:People can get very creative about how they change things, one change at a time, what about a small change to the approval system to get their map approved even if is not a good fit? that kind of stuff, I think for this the discussion within staff should be required and I know little about it, but as far as I know it is not.

It would be hard to trick the community without notice I think especially when there are people like you who keep an eye on small details.

phsc wrote:Well, power changes people making them lazy? I've never really seen this, this made me think of a thing, what about the tragedy of the commons if the team is quite big? like if there are 5 people and someone goes like "oh someone will do that", I think 5 is small, but for other aspects, maybe such as having many members without real differences betwen them, even tho they are different in their skills and such, kinda makes this happen at times?
What if the elector team is affected by this because of their indirect power? it still applies to them.

No, I said the work (tedious work like sitting in chat) can make people tired, bored and lazy at the end. I didn't get the second part.

phsc wrote:A quite funny thing, most replies made to this topic are made by people who either did not read it all (does not even have to be the replies), or did not understand it, and I think it really shows how few people actually pass some of the checks, many staff members have admitted to being lazy and without the capacity of reading long messages and such, which I think is literally, just a pure willpower check, unless time is an issue or something, but if time is an issue, what are you doing in the staff team?

Nobody likes reading long texts. It takes too much time and effort.

phsc wrote:Also quite unrelated but there is this anime called *** which is about a democracy vs a monarchy, with some middle players like a more libertarian planet, also yes, it is futuristic and such, and it is from the 80s with an interesting artstyle and the soundtrack is mostly classical music (space battles with the 4th movement of ***'s 9th symphony playing is straight up amazing, also there is an absurd amount of characters, there are 2 (3 but the other one is bad and weird) movies, 110 episodes of the original series, with a gaiden one which has 28 episodes, if anyone is interested about this discussion and such and about political systems or administrative systems in a more casual way that is not so formal, I greatly recommend it, as it is one of my favorite animes.
A very small and quite obvious spoiler about why I think this is related.
The monarchy turns into an autocracy and I think it really shows the issues of all mentioned systems.

Ouch, the spoiler ruined everything. But I added it to the list. May watch some day. Thanks.
User avatar
xElijah
Usurpation Soldier [50]
 
Posts: 96
Joined: 3 October 2020, 15:43

Re: Concept of better Staff-Community interaction.

Postby phsc » 30 November 2020, 19:34

@xElijah:
Spoiler: Show More
So what system do you propose exactly? I got lost while reading. Can you shortly describe step by step how it would work?

I will explain after replying to all points.

I only said that the person shouldn't be classified as a voter if he uses forum only for memes and freeposting. If he posts smart stuff and memes at the same time it's okay.

The issue is knowing, the zhen example is great, he does not use the forums (he does seem to look at it at times, but not post), in PBC he mostly says funny stuff, in Cult of USE he generally makes the good points I mentioned, how to truly know what someone is like?

How would the verified voter "know the community" if he doesn't spend enough time with the community to learn every single aspect of it? We would get into a situation that you described earlier where discord user doesn't know about toxicity in game.

First, to truly know the community you also would need to be on the discord server and active on the forums, not to mention other aspects (internal communities? external communities?), and this gets the number of people absurdly low.
But also because you do not directly act over a thing - experiencing it for yourself - to know about the community, you can just talk to those who do, or just get their opinions in other ways, in my case the way I get to know what the generic PB2 player thinks is by DARK CLAN, and also paulstin, I do not have the time to casually play like base maps and see what the average 10 year old player thinks, and I do not think that is required for moderation, this gets to another thing, what about people who are focused on getting to know what the community thinks? I will mention this later, but if you talk to people in the PB2 discord, and these people play the game, you can get to know what a part of the players who play the game think, and it is quite impossible to know what all of them think and this ends up being quite effective when compared to actually walking around in matches trying to find people to get the opinions of, I got to know about some toxic users (such as Assassian4) before actually meeting him because of the Discord server, it is quite effective really, what stands out comes to you.
There is also the big issue that, someone who is mature, knows how to be logical, plays PB2, is in the discord and uses the forums is quite ridiculous, who passes for this? extremely few people, is this inherently bad? not really, but is this really a democracy if such a small part of people get to choose who is elected? why not just put those who fit this under a higher position where they can straight up select people if there will be so few? so they can directly dialogue with the elector team? however, making this quite complicated could make those who want to be able to vote to mobilize and fill in what they don't have, which could bring activity to the game, forums, and make people smarter?

It is the most imprtant part and the core of the election system. Considering that there will be a lot of "life" and "activity" around the election system and its events, I think it's a really big responsibility and big honor to be an elector, so I think there will be people who would want to join it.

If you are fit for the elector role you probably already are well known to an extent, like Nyove is well known, you know what I mean?
Maybe not for purely altruistic reasons, but at least for fame? "Hey look, that's Phsc, the elector!" - sounds pleasing, doesn't it? Don't forget the profile tag and name tag and other cool things they could have. Besides this job is generally less tedious because you don't have to sit whole day in chat banning people for p*rn. So it's a part-time job, interesting job, popular job. I think there will be people who would want to join it, believe me or not. And we don't really need many (maybe 3).

Ok, lets say Ditzy, Nyove and Darkstar join, none of them would really care about the title, maybe Nyove? the kind of person who really cares about the title probably does not need the title to be known as I mentioned, people know who Ditzy, Nyove and Darkstar are, but I do think that if the system changed they could switch their positions (Ditzy probably would stay as a moderator maybe???), but for altruistic reasons.
It takes "best" people to join so I have doubts if they become villains really quickly, but even if they do, "helping" is considering illegal, and if players find out something it would mean that the electors will have to be replaced and all electors/admins/mods who knew about the "help" but didn't report it will be under big pressure as well which I think they wouldn't want to have. Direct power, indirect power, they can just ask to ban a rulebreaker and get a quicker response, they can suggest changes and be heard, they control the election and talk to people. That's all the power they really need to play the game and have fun if that's why they joined PB2 for. Besides they will have power to check logs, moderator panel, reports, private forum sections, bans info and etc to see if the team works properly. Isn't this some sort of power as well? Or they directly need the ban hammer to be happy?

This gets to a thing which is, who sets the rules and most importantly, who applies them? let me give you an example, if a staff member dislikes you currently, he is more likely to kick/mute/ban you, that is pretty obvious, that is power, is that right? no, would this happen under the system you are proposing? who knows, the lack of people who are fit for such position makes it quite complicated, not to mention even the best might end up being impulsive in some situations, it is really hard to know, setting the rules is important as well, but maybe electors could have input in that?

How would it work exactly?

Lets say both Ditzy and Nyove apply (and for some reason they don't want to be part of the elector team), both are generally considered good and such, why should they be rivals instead of friends?
Elect both, allow them to dialogue, discuss, any issue they are unsure about what to do? create a poll, ask for opinions, etc.

You mean rules 1.13.1 - 1.13.6? What do you not like about them? About the suggestion - sounds interesting, but I wouldn't overcomplicate the system without more solid reasons. Besides it's a bit hard to imagine how certain things would work in such system in theory and practice.

I will explain the intellectual property part in the next quote, but I think that this system with the division of power could make corruption way more complicated and also make the system more solid in general, because of the division of labor and specialization and such, I will explain it more when I talk about how I think things should be.

The intellectual property rule is what I want to know more about. As for changing the approval system, how exactly would that work and what will prevent verified voters, who should be relatively experienced map makers due to the requirements, to notice such changes and take actions? How to change the ranked system?

Ok, I am agaisnt intellectual property (by most definitions of property it is not even property if you think about it), this gets into politics quite a lot so I will try to keep it short, the book that I'd recommend that is about this is Agaisnt Intellectual Property by Stephan Kinsella, but in general a ton of the authors I've mentioned already, such as Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard, all were agaisnt it as well, with a bunch of arguments, this gets quite complicated but lets talk about PB2 but first: intellectual property naturally exists to allow monopolies to happen and build in an easier way, that in real life, the reason it exists is to make competition harder and allow crony capitalism to do it's thing, under a moral premise, which is just straight up not the reason it exists, but some people do think it should exist for moral reasons, what about in PB2?
I think that intellectual property to an extent is agaisnt what made this game so great, which is innovation, kind of ironic right? every idea is just an improvement of other ones, or application of developed methods and such to achieve a new one, but you will always have external influence, Stryde (who as far as I know suggested the idea) said that it should exist because it happens everywhere, because Eric said it should - someone I forgot asked Eric on twitter, and I also asked, and Eric said that he is only for disapproval of maps if they abuse some flaw or whatever to get the map source, while manual recreations and such should be ok - but well, why does this exist?
It could be Stryde wanting to stop clones of his maps, or for other people to not have to deal with that, and I do not really have an issue with that, sfryde-sniper is a straight up copy of stryde-sniper, the issue is that you cannot play approved maps as custom maps (going to change soon), so what is my problem with it? and it gets to the most complicated of all topics when discussing, DEFINITION.
What is a copy? is it a 1:1 recreation? what if a single thing is changed? what if two maps are mixed? both not original, what if there are decent changes, like, different weapons, decent amount of new walls, new mechanics? who defines that? who applies the rule does, and this is a bit issue, because this is inherently arbitrary, and up to abuse, what about closed-source maps with systems? you make some fancy system which I have in a map of mine, you straight up make a copy of it, my map is only the system, are you copying my map? this could create extremely easy methods of abusing the rules to an extent, but is any of this written? no, because... it is all very not formal and not well defined, just like everything in PB2s rules, the more specific the less abusive by those who apply, and more by those who follow, however I think that if you make actual good rules, following it wouldn't really generate problems, but anyways, imagine if this rule was added in the past, I am pretty sure that htis could be used to disapprove many maps that copy a concept, hell what about removing some sniper map because it is a copy of my sniper map? even tho both can be quite similar and such, are they different? is it the same? it is quite complicated, in general it just limits creativity, as ironic as that might sound, it limits the "Silent Phoenix clones eg-rw and makes that map you can teleport to another dimension", did he require eg-rw? no, but eg-rw is great, it just allows the mechanic to work better, what if you say you are stealing players from the original map? who cares? the map maker, but the service being given to the players is better, it is just like saying like, we have Discord, if I make a clone of Discord and make it better, and it is more popular, why is that bad? because the original owners are losing profit? how is that relevant if people are getting a better service? this is a lot about power abuse at the end of the day, and selfish thinking and simply... arbitrary decisions.

Well, about the voters, if they also need to know map making, the list of those who fits gets more and more specific, like literally, who could fit? give me some examples, make your dream team for your system, also, knowing map making != knowing the approval criteria != knowing the changes made to it, I am pretty sure the approval criteria can be changed out of nowhere and nobody would even realize it happened, other than those who are very focused on it, what about light changes? very slowly, remember the example about burning your hand with fire I gave earlier (I think I did?), well, very few people care about reading the rules and such, very few people care about the rules in general, and very few people have knowledge or the perception to realize such changes, actually the map approval team did not even know that you can insert invisible objects in the level editor that are only visible in the object list or the XML files, this really shows how ignorant people are at the end of the day, also suggestions can have a reason for them to happen, while there is another one that is different, take the intellectual property one, justified with morality, for different reasons deep down, what about this applied to PB2? I gave an example about why it could happen, but what about using the discourse that map making is like dead and the rules make no sense and then rebuild them in a biased way? by the way, I do not think Stryde is doing this, just to make it clear, but it is a thing that could be possible.

If by ruling you mean applying/creating the rules then what is wrong with it if it's all checkable and controlled by the electors and the community? If some clan gets to power and abuses it - he gets kicked out. Simple. Staffs can see the ban reason and evidence like screenshots on profile page. On forum there are logs. In discord I don't know. I doubt they actually discuss it unless if there is a ticket from the banned person was received but even then they probably don't discuss it but just the moderator can give a second chance and lift the ban or say his no to the supplicant. Sure, more control over it would be great. Maybe even making the ban evidence and discussion visible to every user or is it too much?

What if the electors are part of such clan or community? Nyove is part of R!OT as far as I know, or was, Ditzy is quite related to Cult of USE, I am ot saying they would be corrupt, but it is there and it is not hard to do, it could all be secretive as well.
About justification of banning, if a log exists it can be deleted, most probably only by Eric, this gives me some doubts, who runs these forums we are using right now? where are it's logs? how does it all work? how secure is it as in hacking-wise? Discord has audit logs and you can create a log channel with bots and such, but Discord saves all messages sent in case things go bad, also screenshots can easily be abused, I myself can just inspect element, use programs that change teh value of varialbes and such to change the ingame values on my syncing, and I can also photoshop, skills of mine that can be applied, do I abuse them? no, but I could, and such are not that hard to learn, I think that the banning evidence should be visible to all players always, everything should be visible, it makes corruption and abuse way, way harder, also even if it is all deleted, if it is once in the internet, it is forever on the internet, this applies to this.

It would be hard to trick the community without notice I think especially when there are people like you who keep an eye on small details.

I already pretty much talked about this, few people care, few people are competent if they care, and what if these people use their knowledge for evil purposes? I could just get a map approved that gives me infinite health or something, or gives me some other less visible advantage, the approval team did not know about the issue (as far as I know only Stryde knows about it because I told him).

I didn't get the second part.

I will assume you know what the tragedy of the commons is, lets say that we add a bunch of people to the team, and there is work to be done, unless there is division of labor or something like that, people will just pick stuff and let it all work by itself, the issue is, there are boring or tasks people dislike, that can be ignored, such as moderating the game, "someone will do it", and turns out... that pretty much happens? it could happen with a bigger team, big projects are hard to work out if they are not properly organized.

Nobody likes reading long texts. It takes too much time and effort.

And this is exactly how the code of conduct, approval criteria or whatever could be abused!
This is why contracts are long by the way, so you don't read them and just accept questionable terms written there.
Also, this made me remember of one thing, what about changing rules to things that seem kinda irrelevant/helpful with the knowledge we have, but considering that staff members have more knowledge about PB2.5/3 and the changes, staff plans and such, this could be a big issue, how do you check for things with the intent of achieving something in conditions you do not even know?

Ok, lets talk about what I personally think, there are 3 things I believe, from more practical to closer what I prefer, emphasis on the I:
1 - Reapplication/organization/remodelation of current system
2 - New system
3 - Sieg kaiser phsc

1 is pretty much, take everybody from the team, make so they have to apply again, reorganize who does what, add in some community input (the general poll for suggestions idea), division of labor, have a group of people who write, review the systems, code of conduct, approval criteria, the me's and Stryde's, allow people to fit multiple divisions as well, have the people who apply the map approval rules, the people who apply the ingame rules, the people who apply the forum rules and the people who apply the discord rules, also have a team for marketing/videos whatever, mingo makes video on PB2.5/3 and people get hyped, that is good, help him with that, also have a team that gathers feedback, the common social person of PB2 who actually plays does that, and allow people to report things there, also have an internal team for like making functionalities, like ZapruderFilm did with the bot and such.
Is this going to happen? no, even if everybody has to apply again, Tempus greatly values experience (as in time), so basically everybody would stay, even those who literally have no reason to be in staff (tehswordninja! I to this day am unsure about who The Commander is and what he does, also why is jaks nes staff? what does he do? what does Doom really do as well? dandamage? I am truly unsure about these), and well, maybe parts of this could be applied, also make basically everything public and visible, staff applications, bans and their evidence, all of that, all changes made to everything must be logged otherwise they are reverted.
Also allow people who are not part of staff to see some of the discussion stuff, the rule-focused discussion, allow those in such part of the team to pick who they want, simple as that.

2 is pretty much all I mentioned before, but also rework code of conduct, approval criteria (already happening) and all, Eric mystically appears and makes the perfect staff team (or picks someone to make one???), more admins, each one acts as some form of leaders over things, some positions now require public support as well (like the ones who apply the bans and such, unless there is nobody who is able to fit such criteria), members who retire or are inactive are able to participate of discussions and such, internal voting systems in case discussions get a bit complicated/exhaustive/achieve nothing, greatly separate the judiciary, the execute and the legislative, build up a marketing team for PB2.5/3, open a patreon for better servers/allow players to host servers themselves like Eric does on Ukraine, this is straight upt not going to happen, too much work, HAHA DEAD FLASH GAME XD XD

Hitherto I've mentioned a lot of changes reworks and such, these would be applied under 3, I think more ideas could be added and such, but if there is one system which I know I will trust and believe in, it is a system led by me, is this ever going to happen? straight up no, I could not even deliciously exquisite pizza sauce join staff, I also am unsure if I am the best person - personality wise - for dealing with such a position, but I would do exactly what I think should be done and how it should be done and adapt the right way and such, and I think I am pretty competent at that, just the stuff mentioned in 1 and 2, with me having direct control over whatever happens, this is straight up delusional and bizarre, but it is MY ideal system for PB2, maybe not the best? but then, it is the best, kind of interesting huh?

There is more to this but to not keep things extremely long I think this works to give you an idea, criticisms such as "what if the people in the team go bad?", if any of these systems other than 1 maybe even come into reality, just do whatever caused the changes to happen again, in any power system people will be able to be abusive and such, I believe democratization and such is good but not democracy in itself (politically and real-life it sucks, but for PB2 it would work way better), also I might have forgot one thing or two, or not explained things well, I am quite tired right now.
User avatar
phsc
Noir Lime [600]
 
Posts: 694
Joined: 27 July 2013, 13:58
Location: Brazil

Re: Concept of better Staff-Community interaction.

Postby phsc » 1 December 2020, 14:21

@xElijah, I want to explain a thing on the part I talk about intellectual property which I think could cause confusion:
Spoiler: Show More
Intellectual property != copyright, in PB2s cases it would be copyright and such, but I am kind of refering to it as the same, also, I personally do not have a problem with you making a 1:1 copy of a map, an exact copy, and it being disapproved, but if any of it's properties are changed then I think it is valid, and for the sake of objectivity, any change that is visible and impacts the map, the big issue I have is: you do not get the same service when playing sfryde-sniper and stryde-sniper, one of them counts towards your kills, the other does not, this issue is going to be changed, but a map like, stryde-sniper but slow-motion, I think this should be allowed, the product is different, also on Eric's take, I think that if you rebuild the map it should be allowed, now if you get the map files or whatever, that is hacking and goes agaisn't the terms of conduct and such and it is dangerous for the game, and Eric said he is agaisnt this second case, I used the term intellectual property because the justification for it is the same as intellectual property, different from copyright, most authors I mentioned make arguments agasint intellectual property, while copyright should be allowed since it is voluntary and such, a good example is, copying a PB2 map is copyright, just like copying and uploading a youtube video is copyright, but copying PB2 or Youtube and hosting it yourself is intellectual property, and the second has real life punishments and such, which just limits the market and is often used to build monopolies and in general makes everything worse, copyright can be good because it can allow people like youtubers to not lose their careers, but if you copy a video and speed it up (in the case of like nightcore), or slow it down (in the case of the bad vaporwave you find online, good ones actually remix it a bit), or in the case of a remix, or even in the case of like X BUT EVERY TIME Y IT GETS FASTER, or whatever, or like taking cuts from the video and uploading it, just like making a map faster, slower, adding some feature to it, reworking it or taking a part of it should be allowed.
User avatar
phsc
Noir Lime [600]
 
Posts: 694
Joined: 27 July 2013, 13:58
Location: Brazil

Re: Concept of better Staff-Community interaction.

Postby xElijah » 1 December 2020, 17:09

@Phsc (2):
Spoiler: Show More
phsc wrote:The issue is knowing, the zhen example is great, he does not use the forums (he does seem to look at it at times, but not post), in PBC he mostly says funny stuff, in Cult of USE he generally makes the good points I mentioned, how to truly know what someone is like?

I wouldn't remove the requirement just for the sake of people like him.

phsc wrote:First, to truly know the community you also would need to be on the discord server and active on the forums, not to mention other aspects (internal communities? external communities?), and this gets the number of people absurdly low.

Like I said earlier I'm against having discord because it draws people away from playing the game and using forum, but even with it, sure it would be better to have some experience in it as well, not a huge one, but just a little. I didn't talk about internal/external community (what are those anyway and why is it important?). It doesn't get the number of people absurdly low, but just low, and in PB2, not PB3 where we will have more players.

phsc wrote:But also because you do not directly act over a thing - experiencing it for yourself - to know about the community, you can just talk to those who do, or just get their opinions in other ways, in my case the way I get to know what the generic PB2 player thinks is by DARK CLAN, and also paulstin, I do not have the time to casually play like base maps and see what the average 10 year old player thinks, and I do not think that is required for moderation, this gets to another thing, what about people who are focused on getting to know what the community thinks? I will mention this later, but if you talk to people in the PB2 discord, and these people play the game, you can get to know what a part of the players who play the game think, and it is quite impossible to know what all of them think and this ends up being quite effective when compared to actually walking around in matches trying to find people to get the opinions of, I got to know about some toxic users (such as Assassian4) before actually meeting him because of the Discord server, it is quite effective really, what stands out comes to you.

You can use as many sources as you want to know what's going on in the community, nothing wrong with it, but checking, seeing certain things with your own eyes from time to time can be as well useful because sometimes people who share knowledge with you can distort the facts or put their opinion over what actually is.

phsc wrote:There is also the big issue that, someone who is mature, knows how to be logical, plays PB2, is in the discord and uses the forums is quite ridiculous, who passes for this? extremely few people, is this inherently bad? not really, but is this really a democracy if such a small part of people get to choose who is elected?

First of all, the detailed requirements weren't made yet. Play for 1 second in multiplayer, write 1 smart post on the forum, respond to 1 message in discord - who passes for this? See the logic? We don't have the requirements yet to make the final guess about the amount of people who can pass the requirements check. But I see what you mean and like I said earlier we may have more voters in PB3 rather than in PB2, but honestly I think we can have enough voters here in PB2 as well, but this comes to another question - what definition of "enough" each of us uses.

phsc wrote:why not just put those who fit this under a higher position where they can straight up select people if there will be so few? so they can directly dialogue with the elector team? however, making this quite complicated could make those who want to be able to vote to mobilize and fill in what they don't have, which could bring activity to the game, forums, and make people smarter?

Sorry, what?

phsc wrote:If you are fit for the elector role you probably already are well known to an extent, like Nyove is well known, you know what I mean?

Not really.

phsc wrote:Ok, lets say Ditzy, Nyove and Darkstar join, none of them would really care about the title, maybe Nyove? the kind of person who really cares about the title probably does not need the title to be known as I mentioned, people know who Ditzy, Nyove and Darkstar are, but I do think that if the system changed they could switch their positions (Ditzy probably would stay as a moderator maybe???), but for altruistic reasons.

Tags and fame may be just one of possible reasons for future electors to join. It's never enough. Someone who has the fame might want even more. I didn't have Ditzy, Darkstar or Nyove in mind when I was talking about basic concept behind the electors team.

phsc wrote:Lets say both Ditzy and Nyove apply (and for some reason they don't want to be part of the elector team), both are generally considered good and such, why should they be rivals instead of friends?
Elect both, allow them to dialogue, discuss, any issue they are unsure about what to do? create a poll, ask for opinions, etc.

What if it's not Nyove and Ditzy? What if they are people who have absoultely different views on the game and how it should work (would be described in the candidate program) or what if they are enemies, and they, if elected, will interfere into each other's work? What impact would it have on the community and interaction between staff 1 - community, staff 2 - community, staff 1 - electors/Eric, staff 2 - electors/Eric, staff 1- staff 2? What impact would it have on the writing rules and applying them? Dialogue and polls won't be the always working option.

phsc wrote:Ok, I am agaisnt intellectual property (by most definitions of property it is not even property if you think about it), this gets into politics quite a lot so I will try to keep it short, the book that I'd recommend that is about this is Agaisnt Intellectual Property by Stephan Kinsella, but in general a ton of the authors I've mentioned already, such as Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard, all were agaisnt it as well, with a bunch of arguments, this gets quite complicated but lets talk about PB2 but first: intellectual property naturally exists to allow monopolies to happen and build in an easier way, that in real life, the reason it exists is to make competition harder and allow crony capitalism to do it's thing, under a moral premise, which is just straight up not the reason it exists, but some people do think it should exist for moral reasons, what about in PB2?
I think that intellectual property to an extent is agaisnt what made this game so great, which is innovation, kind of ironic right? every idea is just an improvement of other ones, or application of developed methods and such to achieve a new one, but you will always have external influence, Stryde (who as far as I know suggested the idea) said that it should exist because it happens everywhere, because Eric said it should - someone I forgot asked Eric on twitter, and I also asked, and Eric said that he is only for disapproval of maps if they abuse some flaw or whatever to get the map source, while manual recreations and such should be ok - but well, why does this exist?
It could be Stryde wanting to stop clones of his maps, or for other people to not have to deal with that, and I do not really have an issue with that, sfryde-sniper is a straight up copy of stryde-sniper, the issue is that you cannot play approved maps as custom maps (going to change soon), so what is my problem with it? and it gets to the most complicated of all topics when discussing, DEFINITION.
What is a copy? is it a 1:1 recreation? what if a single thing is changed? what if two maps are mixed? both not original, what if there are decent changes, like, different weapons, decent amount of new walls, new mechanics? who defines that? who applies the rule does, and this is a bit issue, because this is inherently arbitrary, and up to abuse, what about closed-source maps with systems? you make some fancy system which I have in a map of mine, you straight up make a copy of it, my map is only the system, are you copying my map? this could create extremely easy methods of abusing the rules to an extent, but is any of this written? no, because... it is all very not formal and not well defined, just like everything in PB2s rules, the more specific the less abusive by those who apply, and more by those who follow, however I think that if you make actual good rules, following it wouldn't really generate problems, but anyways, imagine if this rule was added in the past, I am pretty sure that htis could be used to disapprove many maps that copy a concept, hell what about removing some sniper map because it is a copy of my sniper map? even tho both can be quite similar and such, are they different? is it the same? it is quite complicated, in general it just limits creativity, as ironic as that might sound, it limits the "Silent Phoenix clones eg-rw and makes that map you can teleport to another dimension", did he require eg-rw? no, but eg-rw is great, it just allows the mechanic to work better, what if you say you are stealing players from the original map? who cares? the map maker, but the service being given to the players is better, it is just like saying like, we have Discord, if I make a clone of Discord and make it better, and it is more popular, why is that bad? because the original owners are losing profit? how is that relevant if people are getting a better service? this is a lot about power abuse at the end of the day, and selfish thinking and simply... arbitrary decisions.

As far as I know Silent Phoenix got permission to use Eric's map because he wanted more plays on his map and egrw1 was quite popular back then. So this to some extent can be taken as "stealing players" because he wanted players to switch from egrw1 to his map while using Eric's original work with some extra small feature made by him. The thing is Eric didn't care about stealing players from his map. But what if some other map maker did care and wouldn't want that to happen to his map, but this happened without his permission what would he do? SP could just make his own map layout for his dimension system, but he didn't, he straight up copied egrw1 from first wall to the last, and implementing the intellectual property system shouldn't be considered as creativity limitation in such case because nothing stops him from creating his own map layout and adding the dimension system to it after. Limits creativity or not limits creativity, but I myself wouldn't want that to happen to my maps so I'm okay with having intellectual property, but sure, having a better defined rules would be great. Did you make a forum topic about it? I don't think we should get offtopic and argue about intellectual property here.

phsc wrote:knowing map making != knowing the approval criteria

Good point. I guess the voters should know the approval criteria (at least basic things like "no god buttons that give BNG with 999 projectiles per shot") as well.

phsc wrote:I am pretty sure the approval criteria can be changed out of nowhere and nobody would even realize it happened, other than those who are very focused on it, what about light changes? very slowly, remember the example about burning your hand with fire I gave earlier (I think I did?)

How would it happen on example?

phsc wrote:What if the electors are part of such clan or community? Nyove is part of R!OT as far as I know, or was, Ditzy is quite related to Cult of USE, I am ot saying they would be corrupt, but it is there and it is not hard to do, it could all be secretive as well.

Any known to me system can become corrupt. If the elector is obviously bad to the point when he abuses his elector powers he gets replaced/kicked out. If he does his job fine and at the same time being a part of some community, then I guess it's not much of a deal. As long as he does the job, he can be the elector.

phsc wrote:I think that the banning evidence should be visible to all players always, everything should be visible, it makes corruption and abuse way, way harder, also even if it is all deleted, if it is once in the internet, it is forever on the internet, this applies to this.

Well, at least there is something we both certainly agree with.

phsc wrote:I will assume you know what the tragedy of the commons is, lets say that we add a bunch of people to the team, and there is work to be done, unless there is division of labor or something like that, people will just pick stuff and let it all work by itself, the issue is, there are boring or tasks people dislike, that can be ignored, such as moderating the game, "someone will do it", and turns out... that pretty much happens? it could happen with a bigger team, big projects are hard to work out if they are not properly organized.

If players notice lack of staff activity somewhere on the site, they will report it and if administrator doesn't take actions about his team (like talking to the guy who said "someone will do it") he will not be elected on next election.

phsc wrote:Also, this made me remember of one thing, what about changing rules to things that seem kinda irrelevant/helpful with the knowledge we have, but considering that staff members have more knowledge about PB2.5/3 and the changes, staff plans and such, this could be a big issue, how do you check for things with the intent of achieving something in conditions you do not even know?

Sorry, didn't get what you mean.

phsc wrote:1 is pretty much, take everybody from the team, make so they have to apply again, reorganize who does what, add in some community input (the general poll for suggestions idea), division of labor, have a group of people who write, review the systems, code of conduct, approval criteria, the me's and Stryde's, allow people to fit multiple divisions as well, have the people who apply the map approval rules, the people who apply the ingame rules, the people who apply the forum rules and the people who apply the discord rules, also have a team for marketing/videos whatever, mingo makes video on PB2.5/3 and people get hyped, that is good, help him with that, also have a team that gathers feedback, the common social person of PB2 who actually plays does that, and allow people to report things there, also have an internal team for like making functionalities, like ZapruderFilm did with the bot and such.
Is this going to happen? no, even if everybody has to apply again, Tempus greatly values experience (as in time), so basically everybody would stay, even those who literally have no reason to be in staff (tehswordninja! I to this day am unsure about who The Commander is and what he does, also why is jaks nes staff? what does he do? what does Doom really do as well? dandamage? I am truly unsure about these), and well, maybe parts of this could be applied, also make basically everything public and visible, staff applications, bans and their evidence, all of that, all changes made to everything must be logged otherwise they are reverted.
Also allow people who are not part of staff to see some of the discussion stuff, the rule-focused discussion, allow those in such part of the team to pick who they want, simple as that.

Interesting. But won't it require too many people for this system to operate properly? I wonder how would the activity schedule work here as well, like what if the guy A can replace offline guy B to ban guy C in chat, but he is only allowed to gather feedback? You say allow people to enter multiple divisions, but then what's the difference between having divison of labor and not having it if it all will end up people doing it all together like how it happens now? Why do we need division of labor if some admin can just tell people to not use the excuse of "someone else will do it"? Why do we need people who only write rules if rules change very rarely and only after inner discussion with all interested staff members and even some community members? Also what if someone who applies the rules finds out that the rule is bad, but telling it to its writer doesn't change his mind because the writer lacks knowledge of the guy who applies it? I mean for a staff member to be really professional I think he should be able to do all the jobs in rotation to gather all possible and versatile experience he can. If he focuses on only one activity he will not get the experience from other activity and it would make his judgement not correct at the end, making him make more mistakes at the end and create troubles for other divisions.

Besides how does this system actually solve the incompetence issue now and in future? What person will reorganize things? How will the community feedbacks input actually affect his decisions and what if they just don't? I agree - take Tempus or Eric and he will just set the same team again. If you want real changes I think you need to replace "Eric & Tempus" with "the community", and the real way to do it is the election system.

phsc wrote:2 is pretty much all I mentioned before, but also rework code of conduct, approval criteria (already happening) and all, Eric mystically appears and makes the perfect staff team (or picks someone to make one???), more admins, each one acts as some form of leaders over things, some positions now require public support as well (like the ones who apply the bans and such, unless there is nobody who is able to fit such criteria), members who retire or are inactive are able to participate of discussions and such, internal voting systems in case discussions get a bit complicated/exhaustive/achieve nothing, greatly separate the judiciary, the execute and the legislative, build up a marketing team for PB2.5/3, open a patreon for better servers/allow players to host servers themselves like Eric does on Ukraine, this is straight upt not going to happen, too much work, HAHA DEAD FLASH GAME XD XD

This system really depends on Eric who you call "distant". And it also doesn't solve the incompetence issue and that issue is the reason why I proposed the election system. Because I don't want the system to rely on one life-long admins or group of admins who can just do wrong things now or later. Asking Eric every time we want a new team would be a kinda weird and not working/difficult method. How would the "public support for some positions" work and why would the admins want to listen to it if they know they cannot really be demoted unless if something clearly awful happens and Eric has to interfere. They would also know that Eric is distant, so they can keep things unchanged for quite long time.

phsc wrote:There is more to this but to not keep things extremely long I think this works to give you an idea, criticisms such as "what if the people in the team go bad?", if any of these systems other than 1 maybe even come into reality, just do whatever caused the changes to happen again, in any power system people will be able to be abusive and such, I believe democratization and such is good but not democracy in itself (politically and real-life it sucks, but for PB2 it would work way better), also I might have forgot one thing or two, or not explained things well, I am quite tired right now.

If I understood you right you suggest Eric to interfere and set a new team each time we have problems with staff?

You hate real life democracy for some incomprehensive for me reason, but maybe in Plazma Burst it would work to make you enjoy it? Imagine using the forum not for bug reports and map approvals only, but for bigger activities such as supporting or not supporting some candidate, gathering feedbacks, talking to people/arguing with people, doing investigations, etc. It would make people actually interested in such activities and it would raise the activity, make people understand things better because they will need to talk and listen a lot. It would make PB more fun overall imo. Don't you want the game to be more fun and interesting?
User avatar
xElijah
Usurpation Soldier [50]
 
Posts: 96
Joined: 3 October 2020, 15:43

Re: Concept of better Staff-Community interaction.

Postby IforgotmypasswordHaHAA » 1 December 2020, 22:52

I don't want to be average contrarian that posts on this forum saying no to every single suggestions but just by the fact that a lot of users defend incompetent and arrogant staff members (this also applies vice-versa, which is quite bizarre to say the least) and also considering that they would vote based on friendship rather than standards it tells you enough to conclude that your idea is fundamentally flawed. This same rule will apply to this ''trustful'' person you talk about in your original post.

chelyn wrote:Democracy is like a fruit that is fresh and sweet (just picked), then the fruit is sold by a trader at a separate price or according to the market. Initially the fruit was selling well because it had just been picked, but in a few days the buyers of the fruit began to decrease, because the trader had to bear the risk of competition between other fruit traders. He was getting more and more annoyed, and the longer he wanted to say lies the more it grew. In the end he said that the fruit he was selling was freshly picked, and very, very sweet, so that he found himself and its fruits a pleasure that was covered by a great loss. Such is democracy, at first a clean candidate, can say sweet, and promises, but over time the candidate finds a formidable match. He is getting crazy (starts to lie), then he spreads the issue of lying to his competitors, so that he can win. In the end the candidate won, with great distress to his competitor, what cruel slander.


Food analogies in 2020 omegalul Dansgame
User avatar
IforgotmypasswordHaHAA
Civil Security Lite [100]
 
Posts: 112
Joined: 24 January 2020, 07:34

Re: Concept of better Staff-Community interaction.

Postby phsc » 2 December 2020, 00:26

@xElijah (2):
Spoiler: Show More
I wouldn't remove the requirement just for the sake of people like him.

There are quite a few, the general point is, general social interaction method/preference != skills considered positive for voting.

Like I said earlier I'm against having discord because it draws people away from playing the game and using forum, but even with it, sure it would be better to have some experience in it as well, not a huge one, but just a little.

This reminds me a bit of the stryde-sniper discussion, going agaisn't a thing and removing/whatever it does not remove the demand it has, things do not happen for no reason, offer and demand, just like if stryde-sniper gets deleted another sniper map will very likely be popular because it offers something extremely similar, the PBC discord being deleted will either boost site chat (site chat does not mean people are playing the game!), will boost alternative Discord communities, and will make many who play the game quite rarely just not give a deliciously exquisite pizza sauce because they are not exposed to it constantly, it probably would be a very negative move, not to mention that even back then before Discord and official stuff, xat.com was more popular than the site chat, this is also in general a bad move because most people who just want to talk do not want to play or are unable to (a lot of people are on their phones!).

I didn't talk about internal/external community (what are those anyway and why is it important?). It doesn't get the number of people absurdly low, but just low, and in PB2, not PB3 where we will have more players.

They are relevant because a lot of players are parts of them instead of PBC and they could before the focus if PBC magically did not exist anymore, same point I made in the stryde-sniper post, people want to kill, you ban weapons, they use knifes, same applies here, people want to talk to each other, you remove PBC, they use other chats, also you cannot even ban Discord in this case, xd.


You can use as many sources as you want to know what's going on in the community, nothing wrong with it, but checking, seeing certain things with your own eyes from time to time can be as well useful because sometimes people who share knowledge with you can distort the facts or put their opinion over what actually is.

What facts? what do you see ingame even, everything said ingame as far as I know is saved by Eric, it is just hard to access, people can distort the facts and such but you can also verify them if you are going to commit any kind of action over them, I generally ask multiple different people things because of this, I really don't see the point here, actually play the game and see... what?

First of all, the detailed requirements weren't made yet. Play for 1 second in multiplayer, write 1 smart post on the forum, respond to 1 message in discord - who passes for this? See the logic? We don't have the requirements yet to make the final guess about the amount of people who can pass the requirements check. But I see what you mean and like I said earlier we may have more voters in PB3 rather than in PB2, but honestly I think we can have enough voters here in PB2 as well, but this comes to another question - what definition of "enough" each of us uses.

The way you are writing it makes it very different from what you said before, 1 second in multiplayer for what? what even is the point in 1 second? people would just fake it, no matter the amount of time, nto to mention how complicated measuring the playtime of people ingame, writing one smart post is actually extremely complicated and very few people would be capable of that, write down the criteria you think could make for good voters for your system.

phsc wrote:why not just put those who fit this under a higher position where they can straight up select people if there will be so few? so they can directly dialogue with the elector team? however, making this quite complicated could make those who want to be able to vote to mobilize and fill in what they don't have, which could bring activity to the game, forums, and make people smarter?

Sorry, what?

If it requires people to be logical and make valid points and arguments and such, just pick them and make a selected group of people, there are very few people who pass this criteria, not to mention how checking for it is extremely hard, just look at most replies made to this post, people either did not read what you said or they did not understand what you said, the first case is okay but the second and most likely I believe is quite... sad.

Not really.

People seek what they want, Nyove seems to care about his image and he achieved that, using the image goal to join wouldn't make someone who I think could work well as staff like zhen who also is unknown want to be staff, he is not famous? yeah, those who care about it and would take that for their motivation would not seek it because naturally you seek the things you care and if you seek that you should have it to some amount correlated to your competence and some external factors, it is a big tendency and in cases like this game with few players who could pass the criteria I cannot think of anyone who would maybe join the elector team for the status and image aspects that does not have that already, I'm very curious, a single person who fits that?

Tags and fame may be just one of possible reasons for future electors to join. It's never enough. Someone who has the fame might want even more. I didn't have Ditzy, Darkstar or Nyove in mind when I was talking about basic concept behind the electors team.

You literally used Nyove as your original example?
Also the "it's never enough" point is so weak, I actually think you achieve far greater fame with map making and such because it hits people that naturally would not know you if you were like an elector, lets say you get a fancy ingame tag and a fancy Discord tag, moderators and such already have that, it seems quite pointless for those in the team - who are probably the best for such position - this point is so... forced to me.

What if it's not Nyove and Ditzy? What if they are people who have absoultely different views on the game and how it should work (would be described in the candidate program) or what if they are enemies, and they, if elected, will interfere into each other's work? What impact would it have on the community and interaction between staff 1 - community, staff 2 - community, staff 1 - electors/Eric, staff 2 - electors/Eric, staff 1- staff 2? What impact would it have on the writing rules and applying them? Dialogue and polls won't be the always working option.

Discussion, if they are enemies they are enemies anyway, also I did not say this should always happen, it could be a special case, also casual reminder that if one person gets 101 votes and the other 99 the 101 one ges all of his ideas into the game and this is an extremely weak point of democracy, two completely different ideas but the 101 dude wins assuming both pass the elector team's criteria, healthy for the game? this is the kind of thing that actually could make people leave the game, just like people leave countries when presidents that are exactly what they hate get elected, make so they have to discuss the issues and such, if they cannot, then are they truly mature and should they really be on such position?

As far as I know Silent Phoenix got permission to use Eric's map because he wanted more plays on his map and egrw1 was quite popular back then. So this to some extent can be taken as "stealing players" because he wanted players to switch from egrw1 to his map while using Eric's original work with some extra small feature made by him.

It was just an example, also it is not stealing, stealing is defined as "you take something from someone for yourself", that is stealing, you are not stealing players, first because you do not know if them for sure would play your map (maybe the additional aspects make so they play the other map), second is that, it is completely irrelevant if is stealing, because people would not play a map instead of the other if that map was not better in their own subjective value they give for the map, not to mention people who might like the new map and dislike the original, why should the map maker be the one made happy instead of all the other players? because he is losing players? turns out someone might have had an idea that is better than his, this can be applied to anything tho, I make a base map, you make one that is slighty better with different features, is that stealing? by your definition yes because they are not playing my map, how similar the map is is not really relevant, this is how choosing products works when time is a limited resource and what you can play at once is also limited, this point is so weak.

The thing is Eric didn't care about stealing players from his map. But what if some other map maker did care and wouldn't want that to happen to his map, but this happened without his permission what would he do?

Who cares? hmmm who matters more, all the players who play the map who would lose on fun or joy or general game activity, or the map maker who might be losing players?
SP could just make his own map layout for his dimension system, but he didn't, he straight up copied egrw1 from first wall to the last, and implementing the intellectual property system shouldn't be considered as creativity limitation in such case because nothing stops him from creating his own map layout and adding the dimension system to it after.

What if someone does not have creativity when it comes to wall design and such, but has when it comes to mechanics? it is not a plain skill, you are not good or bad at map making, there are multiple skills involved, not to mention he might not enjoy it, this is very similar to the point I made in the stryde-sniper discussion about people who might not like doing something or have skills in it, did you learn anything from that discussion?
Limits creativity or not limits creativity, but I myself wouldn't want that to happen to my maps so I'm okay with having intellectual property, but sure, having a better defined rules would be great. Did you make a forum topic about it? I don't think we should get offtopic and argue about intellectual property here.

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.

How would it happen on example?

It actually did, Doom once added some information on modded weapons being added to the forum approval criteria, while the ingame one said that they were not allowed, it took a while for people to realize that and to pick which one was right, nobody realized the changed other than me before that, in this case I do not think it was used as a way to abuse the rules and such, but it can happen.

Any known to me system can become corrupt. If the elector is obviously bad to the point when he abuses his elector powers he gets replaced/kicked out. If he does his job fine and at the same time being a part of some community, then I guess it's not much of a deal. As long as he does the job, he can be the elector.

Is not this how the current system should work? staff are still part of the team, this gets to another issue, what if a member of the team of the winner of the election is bad, but not the rest of it? the fact is that, democracy comes in packages, the system I propose also does but it can be changed easily, may I give you an example, how Bolsonaro treated COVID in Brazil was considered terrible by everyone, but in economics Bolsonaro is considered a very good president because of his team, this is why people often support him, in PB2 this could mean that, maybe the Tempus team has some toxic moderator in it, but if you take it out and add a different one, maybe Discord moderation gets weaker? why not take the good parts from each and make the most efficient system?
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.

If players notice lack of staff activity somewhere on the site, they will report it and if administrator doesn't take actions about his team (like talking to the guy who said "someone will do it") he will not be elected on next election.

Yes, but this is a natural phenomena of group work, it is more likely to happen with more people, if it is one single person it happens less, you really did not understand the point I made, maybe having fewer people could be more effective, the exact value is hard to pick.

Sorry, didn't get what you mean.

A lot of things in this game are private, maybe in the future some change/update will be applied, and changing the rules in ways taht seem quite irrelevant currently, in the future could have impact.

Interesting. But won't it require too many people for this system to operate properly? I wonder how would the activity schedule work here as well, like what if the guy A can replace offline guy B to ban guy C in chat, but he is only allowed to gather feedback? You say allow people to enter multiple divisions, but then what's the difference between having divison of labor and not having it if it all will end up people doing it all together like how it happens now?

You really don't understand division of labor, let's say person A is moderating the chat currently and B is a chat moderator but also an igname moderator, he could isntead of staying on the chat maybe moderate in game, this probably is unlikely because he could jsut chat with the discord moderator or whatever, but you get the idea, also the general idea of those who can only gather feedback is that, maybe they are not the best with applying rules, maybe they are too light on their punishments or whatever, but maybe they are skilled socially and likeable, see what I mean? division of labor at it's finest.

Why do we need division of labor if some admin can just tell people to not use the excuse of "someone else will do it"?

YOU REALLY DID NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT THE TRAGEDY OF THE COMMONS IS, holy deliciously exquisite pizza sauce shit, this is the kind of thing that makes me think that everything I've written went to trash, like holy deliciously exquisite pizza sauce, THE TRAGEDY OF THE COMMONS HAPPENS IN ANY SITUATION WHERE THERE ARE MULTIPLE PEOPLE, BUT IF THERE IS A SUBDIVISION OF LABOR THERE ARE FEWER PEOPLE FOR THE TRAGEDY OF THE COMMONS TO APPLY TO, IF THERE ARE 50 MODERATORS IT IS LIKELY THAT NOBODY WILL CARE ABOUT MODERATING BECAUSE THEY WILL THINK "SOMEONE MIGHT DO IT", BUT IF THERE ARE ONLY 3 THEY THINK "IF I DON'T DO STUFF, NOBODY WILL", got it? division of labor solves this issue, there are only 3 people who get feedback, 5 moderators and 2 who deal with map approval, in the current system there are 10 who deal with everything, got it? please say you did...

Why do we need people who only write rules if rules change very rarely and only after inner discussion with all interested staff members and even some community members?

Maybe someone like me is not that fit for other staff positions, but great for this, also what about rule changes? in the last few months many rule changes happened, also generally speaking it requires way more competence than simply banning people and being respectful, more knowledge, a programmer is paid more than the mcdonalds worker, the mcdonalds worker has to flip burgers and act nicely when giving the burgers to people, the programmer
has to have developed logical skills, have a computer, know the language he is working with and such, same applies for making rules and applying rules, same applies for making a program and running/using the program.

Also what if someone who applies the rules finds out that the rule is bad, but telling it to its writer doesn't change his mind because the writer lacks knowledge of the guy who applies it?

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?).

I mean for a staff member to be really professional I think he should be able to do all the jobs in rotation to gather all possible and versatile experience he can.

Time is limited, some skills have more value than others, you cannot get mr jaks nes or The Commander to write a good code of conduct, but you can get someone like Stryde to, also the tragedy of the commons gets more complicated here, and htis also gets to another problem, what if someone is not capable of something? like maybe a staff member is really bad with map approval, and then he... has to deal with it? makes straight up no sense, division of labor objectively makes sense, it has been shown in real life, and like... everywhere, I really don't see your points agaisnt this, this is really confusing because this should be fairly obvious, you literally just want to lower the amount of possible staff members, giving all jobs similar value considering there is a limited resource called time and also make the tragedy of the commons more extreme? what?

If he focuses on only one activity he will not get the experience from other activity and it would make his judgement not correct at the end, making him make more mistakes at the end and create troubles for other divisions.

What experience is there to get? he can always learn about it in his free time, he can get the role and try it out, maybe have some kind of training program where he sees someone who is skilled doing it or that person teaches him, also why would his judgement less correct if he does not deal with such activities? not to mention natural traits people have greatly interfere with this, and also what they do externally, if you read a ton of fancy books on logic maybe you end up making better and more consistent rules, now if you instead go out and talk to people, that makes you better at socialization and such, PB2 experience is very simple and limited and a lot of it is quite hard to change, this also makes very little sense I think, so you want incompetent people doing jobs poorly so they MAYBE build up skills/experience? when a lot of it takes time and might not even happen?

Besides how does this system actually solve the incompetence issue now and in future?

It does not, just like your system does not, just like no system does, I mean the person picked sohuld be competent, if he is incompetent, just get him out.

What person will reorganize things?

This is the biggest issue with any PB2 system, who will organize the democracy? the electors? who will organize the electors? the democracy? see the issue here, if it ends up being Eric he is jsut detached, quite complicated.

How will the community feedbacks input actually affect his decisions and what if they just don't?

It does not, just like in an election it would not, who will take those in power away from power if they do a bad job?the electors? they would need power for that, who will take the electors out of they do a bad job? the admin team? but the electors set the admin team, and what about both? it all goes to Eric at the end of the day.

I agree - take Tempus or Eric and he will just set the same team again. If you want real changes I think you need to replace "Eric & Tempus" with "the community", and the real way to do it is the election system.

This is not why we need an election system, who will set up the election system? Tempus or Eric, who will apply the first election system? Tempus or Eric, who will actually give the admin rights and such? at least Eric, if you way "the community will set the electors", how if there is no democracy? and if you say "the electors will set the system for the democracy", how will the electors be set? this is a tautology that is super weird, all cases go to Eric.

This system really depends on Eric who you call "distant".

All systems do, including changing into your system, he owns the game after all, but this one actually requires far less work I'd say.

And it also doesn't solve the incompetence issue and that issue is the reason why I proposed the election system.

Your system does not solve it either! you literally ignored all I said, who selects the elector team? the community? who says if the community is mature and apt to elect the elector team? the... electors? it has to be Eric, and what if Eric makes a mistake? just like you believe he has had? it is a problem of all systems, unsure if you realize that, it is all about efficiency.

Because I don't want the system to rely on one life-long admins or group of admins who can just do wrong things now or later.

They always will, the electors just become the higher admins who verify the voted admins, did you read anything I said? this is getting frustrating, not to mention changing into this system involves way more effort and such long term, also who said the admins are life long? they leave and join the team, just like happens now, Kiriakos was a moderator in the past, and spaz also was one, spaz left, Kiriakos went up, Zapruder was head moderator, now he is like... not even a part of staff? the system does change.

Asking Eric every time we want a new team would be a kinda weird and not working/difficult method.

What if we want to change the electors? who will elect them? who will verify them? the admins? what if the admins verify people who will elect them next time, this creates quite the loophope, democracy really... sucks.

How would the "public support for some positions" work and why would the admins want to listen to it if they know they cannot really be demoted unless if something clearly awful happens and Eric has to interfere. They would also know that Eric is distant, so they can keep things unchanged for quite long time.

Why would this happen under democracy as well? in both systems, someone will pick who leads, the thing is yours is overly complicated, slow and quite arbitrary just like real democracy, allowing for even more loopholes because it does not depend on Eric, not to mention the 51-49 situation which is obviously terrible, or how easy corruption can be, and how pointless the elector team is at the end of the day, also impeachment and such and new elections would directly involve Eric because he is the only one who can make people admins, does anything really change?

If I understood you right you suggest Eric to interfere and set a new team each time we have problems with staff?

Eric is what rules the game anyway, he is the one who selects if democracy should be the system or not, he is the one who would at the end of the day select the elector team, he would be the one who would give the power to admins, just like any centralized system, because he... like... owns the game, and yes, this system would work like that, but giving all power to nice organized and well divided people is better than kinda of putting it on the lottery and hoping someone mature and popular gets votes, not to mention taht people probably would be quite mad if like, the 6th place dude with 5% of the votes is the only one considered mature, and this could actually be the case, all systems require Eric.

You hate real life democracy for some incomprehensive for me reason, but maybe in Plazma Burst it would work to make you enjoy it?

You said you don't want to talk about politics, real life democracy has much more to it, the state is centralized and organized violence that controsl pretty much everything, there is no Eric in real life, just read Democracy: The God That Failed by Hans-Hermann Hoppe and you probably will understand, it really sucks, I've mentioned other books and authors in my replies.
In PB2 it could work because it is more likely that actual good people try to be elected and since it is a centralized system that is easy to form there are way less problems, I do think it still sucks.

Imagine using the forum not for bug reports and map approvals only, but for bigger activities such as supporting or not supporting some candidate, gathering feedbacks, talking to people/arguing with people, doing investigations, etc. It would make people actually interested in such activities and it would raise the activity, make people understand things better because they will need to talk and listen a lot. It would make PB more fun overall imo. Don't you want the game to be more fun and interesting?

Why does htis not happen? because it is not practical, first a lot of map approval discussion, actual discussion and feedback happens on the Discord, the #maps channel, the PB2 maps discord server ran by Kiriakos and the multitude of private discord server, where teh actual testing happens, because iti s fast, everybody is online there, it all is just way faster, that is why the Discord is popular and the forums are not, the exchange of information and the general activity of people are faster, you seem to really ignore offer and demand for some reason, feedback happens there, supporting candidates and such actually happens on Discord, there have been polls about good/bad staff members, people discuss about those who often apply to staff, or complain about current staff there, people argue there, people give feedback about everything because it is faster, also raising activity on the forums is irrelevant to the game, I really don't see how it relates, people on the forums or on the Discord are not playing the game anyway, also people do not talk about things in serious and mature ways on the Discord (or most of the time on the forums), why would they change out of nowhere if they came to the forums? that is not how it works, it does not affect the quality of discussion or knowledge and such, it is completely unrelated to PB2, it would make it more boring because you cannot jsut go on #general and talk about anything you want, you ahve to make a thread and such and then it is just all slow, there is a reason why Discord is way more popular than the forums, this is quite surreal, I actually have to say this?

I was thinking this discussion was going somewhere, but really, nothing seems to change, some of your points are pretty much the same you said about stryde-sniper in Max Teabag's topic but just applied in another way, and you said you admitted the points I made there? this is kind of... frustrating, that is the word.

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.
User avatar
phsc
Noir Lime [600]
 
Posts: 694
Joined: 27 July 2013, 13:58
Location: Brazil

Re: Concept of better Staff-Community interaction.

Postby xElijah » 3 December 2020, 19:55

@Phsc, this conversation actually goes nowhere as you said in the ending of your post. So maybe we just end it right here? With no intent to offend you I have to say that I'm not happy about this 1 week fest of walls writing that you started. The only two valuable contributions you did to this topic were "there should be more electors than one" and "verified voters should know the approval requirements". Thank you for these. But everything else was just picky overspeculative arguing over nothing with a lot of unnecessary details and information. I spent too much time trying to understand what you were saying because you form sentences very badly and very long and just cannot express yourself in a way to be understood. You do not use the punctuation (you put commas instead of periods) as well, which makes understanding of your sentences even harder. Now you started to overuse caps and offensive language again, which made it all even worse. If you want to continue arguing, please keep your sentences short, remove all unnecessary details, put periods where they should be, don't throw insults, and most importantly - get to the point. If some statement is already answered or you think it's useless to answer to it, then there is no need to reply to it with extra unneeded information to continue the argument. Let's finish, ok? I don't want to spend another week arguing over nothing. Please keep answers short:
Spoiler: Show More
phsc wrote:There are quite a few, the general point is, general social interaction method/preference != skills considered positive for voting.

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.

phsc wrote:This reminds me a bit of the stryde-sniper discussion, going agaisn't a thing and removing/whatever it does not remove the demand it has, things do not happen for no reason, offer and demand, just like if stryde-sniper gets deleted another sniper map will very likely be popular because it offers something extremely similar, the PBC discord being deleted will either boost site chat (site chat does not mean people are playing the game!), will boost alternative Discord communities, and will make many who play the game quite rarely just not give a deliciously exquisite pizza sauce because they are not exposed to it constantly, it probably would be a very negative move, not to mention that even back then before Discord and official stuff, xat.com was more popular than the site chat, this is also in general a bad move because most people who just want to talk do not want to play or are unable to (a lot of people are on their phones!).

I'm against having site chat as well. I don't care about demand in such case. I only care about having activity in the game itself and optionally forum. Removing official chats will boost activity in alternative private chats, but it doesn't matter as its audience won't be as big. If they don't use PB2 for gaming, they can leave, farewell.

phsc wrote:What facts? what do you see ingame even, everything said ingame as far as I know is saved by Eric, it is just hard to access, people can distort the facts and such but you can also verify them if you are going to commit any kind of action over them, I generally ask multiple different people things because of this, I really don't see the point here, actually play the game and see... what?

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.

phsc wrote:The way you are writing it makes it very different from what you said before, 1 second in multiplayer for what? what even is the point in 1 second? people would just fake it, no matter the amount of time, nto to mention how complicated measuring the playtime of people ingame, writing one smart post is actually extremely complicated and very few people would be capable of that, write down the criteria you think could make for good voters for your system.

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.

phsc wrote:If it requires people to be logical and make valid points and arguments and such, just pick them and make a selected group of people, there are very few people who pass this criteria, not to mention how checking for it is extremely hard, just look at most replies made to this post, people either did not read what you said or they did not understand what you said, the first case is okay but the second and most likely I believe is quite... sad.

It's not hard to check the voters. 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.

phsc wrote:People seek what they want, Nyove seems to care about his image and he achieved that, using the image goal to join wouldn't make someone who I think could work well as staff like zhen who also is unknown want to be staff, he is not famous? yeah, those who care about it and would take that for their motivation would not seek it because naturally you seek the things you care and if you seek that you should have it to some amount correlated to your competence and some external factors, it is a big tendency and in cases like this game with few players who could pass the criteria I cannot think of anyone who would maybe join the elector team for the status and image aspects that does not have that already, I'm very curious, a single person who fits that?

Please express yourself shortly, clearly, with better punctuation and without unnecessary details and names.

phsc wrote:You literally used Nyove as your original example?
Also the "it's never enough" point is so weak, I actually think you achieve far greater fame with map making and such because it hits people that naturally would not know you if you were like an elector, lets say you get a fancy ingame tag and a fancy Discord tag, moderators and such already have that, it seems quite pointless for those in the team - who are probably the best for such position - this point is so... forced to me.

"You actually think" is what you actually think. Your thinking is not a fact, but just a guess.

phsc wrote:Discussion, if they are enemies they are enemies anyway, also I did not say this should always happen, it could be a special case, also casual reminder that if one person gets 101 votes and the other 99 the 101 one ges all of his ideas into the game and this is an extremely weak point of democracy, two completely different ideas but the 101 dude wins assuming both pass the elector team's criteria, healthy for the game? this is the kind of thing that actually could make people leave the game, just like people leave countries when presidents that are exactly what they hate get elected, make so they have to discuss the issues and such, if they cannot, then are they truly mature and should they really be on such position?

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.

phsc wrote:It was just an example, also it is not stealing, stealing is defined as "you take something from someone for yourself", that is stealing, you are not stealing players, first because you do not know if them for sure would play your map (maybe the additional aspects make so they play the other map), second is that, it is completely irrelevant if is stealing, because people would not play a map instead of the other if that map was not better in their own subjective value they give for the map, not to mention people who might like the new map and dislike the original, why should the map maker be the one made happy instead of all the other players? because he is losing players? turns out someone might have had an idea that is better than his, this can be applied to anything tho, I make a base map, you make one that is slighty better with different features, is that stealing? by your definition yes because they are not playing my map, how similar the map is is not really relevant, this is how choosing products works when time is a limited resource and what you can play at once is also limited, this point is so weak.

For you it's not stealing. For me it's stealing despite of its direct definition. 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.

phsc wrote:Who cares? hmmm who matters more, all the players who play the map who would lose on fun or joy or general game activity, or the map maker who might be losing players?

Map makers care. Staff cares. Staff cares about both groups: map makers and map players. They try to find the balance between their interests and it's their job.

phsc wrote:What if someone does not have creativity when it comes to wall design and such, but has when it comes to mechanics? it is not a plain skill, you are not good or bad at map making, there are multiple skills involved, not to mention he might not enjoy it, this is very similar to the point I made in the stryde-sniper discussion about people who might not like doing something or have skills in it, did you learn anything from that discussion?

Someone not having creativity or wish is his own problem. If he is too lazy or unskillful it doesn't mean we should let players steal map layouts from each other. What should I have learned from stryde-sniper discussion? Tell me, I'm curious how you see it.

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. Your topic, indeed, would probably change nothing because people support this rule. 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.

phsc wrote:It actually did, Doom once added some information on modded weapons being added to the forum approval criteria, while the ingame one said that they were not allowed, it took a while for people to realize that and to pick which one was right, nobody realized the changed other than me before that, in this case I do not think it was used as a way to abuse the rules and such, but it can happen.

Did it hurt anybody? No. Was this used to approve inappropriate maps with bad intentions? No. Was this issue solved when found out? Yes. Was this issue a big deal and a proof of how the staff can sneak into the rules to fool the whole community? No.

phsc wrote:Is not this how the current system should work? staff are still part of the team, this gets to another issue, what if a member of the team of the winner of the election is bad, but not the rest of it? the fact is that, democracy comes in packages, the system I propose also does but it can be changed easily, may I give you an example, how Bolsonaro treated COVID in Brazil was considered terrible by everyone, but in economics Bolsonaro is considered a very good president because of his team, this is why people often support him, in PB2 this could mean that, maybe the Tempus team has some toxic moderator in it, but if you take it out and add a different one, maybe Discord moderation gets weaker? why not take the good parts from each and make the most efficient system?

Please remove all unnecessary details and get to the point related to the election system. Keep it short and clear please.

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. Such as constant controlling and checking of the voters by the electors, the elected team not feeling confident about tomorrow, the community members who picked one candidate today, but can lose him tomorrow due to unexpected circumstances and election process. 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.

phsc wrote:Yes, but this is a natural phenomena of group work, it is more likely to happen with more people, if it is one single person it happens less, you really did not understand the point I made, maybe having fewer people could be more effective, the exact value is hard to pick.

Please get to the point. What are you trying to tell and why?

phsc wrote:A lot of things in this game are private, maybe in the future some change/update will be applied, and changing the rules in ways taht seem quite irrelevant currently, in the future could have impact.

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?

phsc wrote:You really don't understand division of labor, let's say person A is moderating the chat currently and B is a chat moderator but also an igname moderator, he could isntead of staying on the chat maybe moderate in game, this probably is unlikely because he could jsut chat with the discord moderator or whatever, but you get the idea

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? Please explain it shortly and clearly.

phsc wrote:also the general idea of those who can only gather feedback is that, maybe they are not the best with applying rules, maybe they are too light on their punishments or whatever, but maybe they are skilled socially and likeable, see what I mean? division of labor at it's finest.

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. 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.

phsc wrote:YOU REALLY DID NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT THE TRAGEDY OF THE COMMONS IS, holy deliciously exquisite pizza sauce shit, this is the kind of thing that makes me think that everything I've written went to trash, like holy deliciously exquisite pizza sauce, THE TRAGEDY OF THE COMMONS HAPPENS IN ANY SITUATION WHERE THERE ARE MULTIPLE PEOPLE, BUT IF THERE IS A SUBDIVISION OF LABOR THERE ARE FEWER PEOPLE FOR THE TRAGEDY OF THE COMMONS TO APPLY TO, IF THERE ARE 50 MODERATORS IT IS LIKELY THAT NOBODY WILL CARE ABOUT MODERATING BECAUSE THEY WILL THINK "SOMEONE MIGHT DO IT", BUT IF THERE ARE ONLY 3 THEY THINK "IF I DON'T DO STUFF, NOBODY WILL", got it? division of labor solves this issue, there are only 3 people who get feedback, 5 moderators and 2 who deal with map approval, in the current system there are 10 who deal with everything, got it? please say you did...

First of all, please stay calm while talking, otherwise people will not listen to you and moreover they may consider you an immature opponent. 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. 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? 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? 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. That's how I see it. If I misunderstood you again, please explain what you are trying to say in a short and polite manner.

phsc wrote:Maybe someone like me is not that fit for other staff positions, but great for this, also what about rule changes? in the last few months many rule changes happened, also generally speaking it requires way more competence than simply banning people and being respectful, more knowledge, a programmer is paid more than the mcdonalds worker, the mcdonalds worker has to flip burgers and act nicely when giving the burgers to people, the programmer has to have developed logical skills, have a computer, know the language he is working with and such, same applies for making rules and applying rules, same applies for making a program and running/using the program.

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. 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. 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. 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.

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. 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. 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. 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.

phsc wrote:Time is limited, some skills have more value than others, you cannot get mr jaks nes or The Commander to write a good code of conduct, but you can get someone like Stryde to, also the tragedy of the commons gets more complicated here, and htis also gets to another problem, what if someone is not capable of something? like maybe a staff member is really bad with map approval, and then he... has to deal with it? makes straight up no sense, division of labor objectively makes sense, it has been shown in real life, and like... everywhere, I really don't see your points agaisnt this, this is really confusing because this should be fairly obvious, you literally just want to lower the amount of possible staff members, giving all jobs similar value considering there is a limited resource called time and also make the tragedy of the commons more extreme? what?

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. 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. As for the rules writing - they are usually changed after discussion with all staff members, so each staff member indirectly writes rules. 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. Time is limited, so what? You are not forced to spend more time on PB2 than what you want to. 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.

phsc wrote:It does not, just like your system does not, just like no system does, I mean the person picked sohuld be competent, if he is incompetent, just get him out.

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). 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, 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.

phsc wrote:This is the biggest issue with any PB2 system, who will organize the democracy? the electors? who will organize the electors? the democracy? see the issue here, if it ends up being Eric he is jsut detached, quite complicated.

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. The procedure would be described during that gathering so the electors would know what to do in advance. Then they announce the election and we elect the new administrator who picks his team based on his personal preference. 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. 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? 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.

phsc wrote:It does not, just like in an election it would not, who will take those in power away from power if they do a bad job?the electors? they would need power for that, who will take the electors out of they do a bad job? the admin team? but the electors set the admin team, and what about both? it all goes to Eric at the end of the day.

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. 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. 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. 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.

phsc wrote:All systems do, including changing into your system, he owns the game after all, but this one actually requires far less work I'd say.

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. And it all will most likely end up setting someone like Tempus as administrator. It would be time consuming and confusing with questionable results. 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.

phsc wrote:They always will, the electors just become the higher admins who verify the voted admins, did you read anything I said? this is getting frustrating, not to mention changing into this system involves way more effort and such long term, also who said the admins are life long? they leave and join the team, just like happens now, Kiriakos was a moderator in the past, and spaz also was one, spaz left, Kiriakos went up, Zapruder was head moderator, now he is like... not even a part of staff? the system does change.

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.

phsc wrote:Why would this happen under democracy as well? in both systems, someone will pick who leads, the thing is yours is overly complicated, slow and quite arbitrary just like real democracy, allowing for even more loopholes because it does not depend on Eric, not to mention the 51-49 situation which is obviously terrible, or how easy corruption can be, and how pointless the elector team is at the end of the day, also impeachment and such and new elections would directly involve Eric because he is the only one who can make people admins, does anything really change?

I explained my point above. Now can you answer how does "public support" would work in your system? You didn't answer that.

phsc wrote:Eric is what rules the game anyway, he is the one who selects if democracy should be the system or not, he is the one who would at the end of the day select the elector team, he would be the one who would give the power to admins, just like any centralized system, because he... like... owns the game, and yes, this system would work like that, but giving all power to nice organized and well divided people is better than kinda of putting it on the lottery and hoping someone mature and popular gets votes, not to mention taht people probably would be quite mad if like, the 6th place dude with 5% of the votes is the only one considered mature, and this could actually be the case, all systems require Eric.

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?

phsc wrote:I was thinking this discussion was going somewhere, but really, nothing seems to change, some of your points are pretty much the same you said about stryde-sniper in Max Teabag's topic but just applied in another way, and you said you admitted the points I made there? this is kind of... frustrating, that is the word.

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.

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.




@IforgotmypasswordHaHAA, thank you very much for sharing your opinion about this system. I understand your concern, but I think I should clarify some of my points stated in the OP:
Spoiler: Show More
IforgotmypasswordHaHAA wrote:I don't want to be average contrarian that posts on this forum saying no to every single suggestions but just by the fact that a lot of users defend incompetent and arrogant staff members (this also applies vice-versa, which is quite bizarre to say the least) and also considering that they would vote based on friendship rather than standards it tells you enough to conclude that your idea is fundamentally flawed. This same rule will apply to this ''trustful'' person you talk about in your original post.

I think there are people who defend incompetent staff member because they lack knowledge about that person. It's a common thing in democracy. While I do understand why you are concerned about this, I think having the election system would make the political life within PB become bigger and more complex, making voters talk to each other a lot and listen a lot too, which in the end would most likely solve the issues and misunderstandings.

As for the "they will vote for friends" point, I think I would agree. However, it doesn't mean that the person who is elected will be incompetent in the role of administrator, because: 1) all voters will be verified for maturity by the electors (this would be made by checking previous posts and activity of the voter). 2) The electors will check if the staff candidate knows all the rules and other important for competence information.

Thank you for your opinion again. I'm glad there are people out there who care to spend their time to discuss something that is, in my opinion, very important for the community.
User avatar
xElijah
Usurpation Soldier [50]
 
Posts: 96
Joined: 3 October 2020, 15:43

Re: Concept of better Staff-Community interaction.

Postby TheMeteor » 3 December 2020, 21:06

paulstin wrote:some of the pb2 staff do abuse there power. i know this, i have copies of some of their nasty messages on file.lol. some of them would love to ban me, and are very anti DARK CLAN. and some of them dont even bother to help the game, they dont seem that interested, i think its a case of them "being to good for the likes of us"

BUT there are some good mods, who do make a effort, and they are good staff members, who try there best to help. What PB2 has now, in the case of its staff team, is the best it can do, as this is a not a very active game, Its very hard to find staff,

A staff member should be neutrel, open minded, have experience of the game, they do not have to have a high skill in playing, but just know about the game, and to find such players takes time, as they have to be observed over time, to see if they are capable of doing the job, and to see there general attitude in game,

Electing players to be staff is a very bad idea, as the "winners" would be players who get the most votes, imagine me being elected as a staff member, there would be a uproar, and quite rightly so, i am acting leader of the biggest clan, so you can safely assume, most of the DARK CLAN members would vote for me, and i would get a lot of votes,

a Plazma Burst world with me as a staff member would be the rest of the players worst nightmare, with me doing constant global announcements of DARK CLAN is best, JOIN DARK CLAN etc, and DARK CLAN logos plastered all over the maps and bases, lol,
So the system we have now, is the best you can get at this point in time.

Bruh can you stop attacking people only because they don't like ur clan? Think about why the people hates it, please.
User avatar
TheMeteor
Usurpation Soldier [50]
 
Posts: 82
Joined: 4 January 2019, 00:50

Re: Concept of better Staff-Community interaction.

Postby Gashadokuro » 3 December 2020, 21:50

Regardless of how broken such a system would be, I don't think it'd add anything new at all.

The official twitter sharing community content + memes (https://twitter.com/tomatomorta/status/ ... 50211?s=20 for example) and discord staff not saying they want to ban half the server would be better and easier for example.
User avatar
Gashadokuro
Civil Security Heavy [300]
 
Posts: 306
Joined: 17 May 2014, 21:54
Location: Spain

Re: Concept of better Staff-Community interaction.

Postby xElijah » 3 December 2020, 21:55

Gashadokuro wrote:Regardless of how broken such a system would be, I don't think it'd add anything new at all.

Hello, Gashadokuro. Thank you very much for posting your opinion about the election system. May I ask why do you have doubts about it?
User avatar
xElijah
Usurpation Soldier [50]
 
Posts: 96
Joined: 3 October 2020, 15:43

Re: Concept of better Staff-Community interaction.

Postby Nehil » 3 December 2020, 22:47

Im just gonna say that this is quite stupid, im cool with you Elijah but "DEMOCRACY" on pb2, no, not just pb2, democracy on any game its just not worth

it would be just chaotic, welp just take it from another perspective, if you were the game developer, would you let your community choose who should be the staff? (considering that most of them are kids with lack of knowledge about what means choosing someone with responsability)

You also have to consider consequences, as gashakoduro said, the system would be just broken, people would vote for randoms or trolls, also, do you think that the whole community would take it seriously? do you fr think that by letting the community choose everything will change? on my own opinion it would be just worse than now and it would take a ton of time

I could argue about it but i have homework, i just wanted to say that the system would be just dumb with lack of sense, it would take a ton of time to "choose" people for staff, it would get trolls, kids, people with lack of social skills and ofc it would kill the game (if its not death yet)

Nehil
Cyber Grub [25]
 
Posts: 44
Joined: 19 October 2020, 23:43
Location: Chile

Re: Concept of better Staff-Community interaction.

Postby phsc » 3 December 2020, 23:05

xElijah wrote:@Phsc, this conversation actually goes nowhere as you said in the ending of your post. So maybe we just end it right here?

Ok.

With no intent to offend you I have to say that I'm not happy about this 1 week fest of walls writing that you started. The only two valuable contributions you did to this topic were "there should be more electors than one" and "verified voters should know the approval requirements". Thank you for these. But everything else was just picky overspeculative arguing over nothing with a lot of unnecessary details and information.

I made way more points which you kind of ignored, and this is why I think this goes nowhere!

I spent too much time trying to understand what you were saying because you form sentences very badly and very long and just cannot express yourself in a way to be understood. You do not use the punctuation (you put commas instead of periods) as well, which makes understanding of your sentences even harder.

I disagree, most books are written in the format I use (like, academical older ones), two authors and all of their work which comes to my mind: Descartes and Hayek.
I do use ponctuation, I do make very long sentences, I don't think I express things poorly because in other places, communities and such people seem to understand me quite well, PB2 seems to be a big exception to this, kind of... strange really.

Now you started to overuse caps and offensive language again, which made it all even worse. If you want to continue arguing, please keep your sentences short, remove all unnecessary details, put periods where they should be, don't throw insults, and most importantly - get to the point. If some statement is already answered or you think it's useless to answer to it, then there is no need to reply to it with extra unneeded information to continue the argument. Let's finish, ok? I don't want to spend another week arguing over nothing. Please keep answers short:

You just ignore some things I say, this is my biggest issue with you, but ok, this is pointless, I wrote a lot and a lot for no reason, you don't want to drop democracy, but this is harmless, this system won't be implemented.


Spoiler: Show More
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.


The end.
User avatar
phsc
Noir Lime [600]
 
Posts: 694
Joined: 27 July 2013, 13:58
Location: Brazil

Re: Concept of better Staff-Community interaction.

Postby paulstin » 4 December 2020, 01:24

TheMeteor wrote:
paulstin wrote:some of the pb2 staff do abuse there power. i know this, i have copies of some of their nasty messages on file.lol. some of them would love to ban me, and are very anti DARK CLAN. and some of them dont even bother to help the game, they dont seem that interested, i think its a case of them "being to good for the likes of us"


Bruh can you stop attacking people only because they don't like ur clan? Think about why the people hates it, please.


Im not attacking anyone at all, I give facts, FACTS i can back up!, and i do not need to think, i know why people hate the most Glorious DARK CLAN, its because DARK CLAN has not only survived since 2011, it has grown into the most biggest and the dominant clan in pb2 history, when other, "so called" better clans have come and gone. and we will grow even bigger, and we will be dominant in pb2.5. our glorious DARK CLAN is the most popular clan, it is a important part of pb2. and when our supreme leader, the pb2 god and legend Yoshiman the Great rejoins in pb2.5 he will lead us once again, LONG LIVE OUR VICTORIOUS DARK CLAN. LONG LIVE THE MOST GLORIOUS YOSHIMAN THE GREAT

paulstin
Usurpation Soldier [50]
 
Posts: 74
Joined: 9 October 2013, 20:14

Re: Concept of better Staff-Community interaction.

Postby Yex » 4 December 2020, 06:21

It's best to not have abusive people who abused the powers otherwise it'll really start to come down hill fast!

And horribly quite quickly!
Now I really want to die. Just to get out of this embarrassment.
Don't talk to me.
User avatar
Yex
Civil Security Lite [100]
 
Posts: 103
Joined: 13 May 2020, 22:07
Location: Hell

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users