+- Forums - Open Redstone Engineers (https://forum.openredstone.org)
+-- Forum: ORE General (https://forum.openredstone.org/forum-39.html)
+--- Forum: Build Discussion (https://forum.openredstone.org/forum-50.html)
+--- Thread: Unacceptable. (/thread-4028.html)
Unacceptable. - Cutlassw30 - 07-11-2014
Ok this is getting really bad what the fuck is this RDF 2.0? Rarely are there admins on and when they are people don't get trialed and when there is no admins on people get fucking stupid and idiotic in chat.
Also I've noticed something rather alarming. The public image of ORE is fucking terrible, we give the the finger to new people who join the server or post applications on the forums. Instances of this would be when when a new person joins the server they get treated like dirt. Admins really never help them out and are often afk or "busy". Yes im talking to you tyler, greatgamer, and embizone you never help out new visitors on the server and often shun them completely.
Just look at the recent applications greatgamer telling people to "read this skrub" and "did you even try? k bye" How about a nice "this is not accepted" and give more information rather than acting like a jack ass.
The effect of all of this can be seen really well by looking at the application posts for stym's server where guys like jmking and gtaguy have moved onto styms. I think we need new active admins and the old ones should be removed because they are serving no purpose other than to have fancy fucking prefixes on there name.
I like ORE and I would not like it to turn into RDF 2. Admins like guy and prop where really nice when talking to people and where not such assholes. Granted with my past I should not be talking but I'm not an admin and admins should respect people.
RE: Unacceptable. - tyler569 - 07-11-2014
I actually agree with much of this, I've been pushing for a new admin election recently and have been trying to talk to my fellow admins (yes this means you great - I believe we've already had this conversation once) about forum etiquette. Much of my ORE time these days is working on converting the server's amenities to UUID compatible solutions for 1.7.9/10/1.8, but once that happens I'll be able to be much more personable.
RE: Unacceptable. - PNWMan - 07-11-2014
I feel cut is right about this, and that old, inactive, or unwanting staff members should be demoted. I also feel possibly a new rank should be included, a [Moderator]. Feel free to change the name, idc. But this new rank would not have full staff privileges such as console access, social spy, high-trust things like that. However, they would have the ability to accept applications and possibly promote to student (possibly only student and not member??) and also do a trial. I've seen 1 instance where a member (greatgamer to be specific, not a staff member at the time) was chosen to do the trial. I mean, is accepting an application a ridiculously hard and dangerous thing to do? And are most members so stupid they can't even oversee and judge a trial? The answer to both these questions is unquestionably NO. However, not just any member should be given this new rank, only members who have shown that they are trustworthy for a while.
Students-to-be and members-to-be are frustrated at this process taking days when it could literally take 5 minutes to accept an application, and for visitors to become students. These are not hard tasks, and should not require 1 of the few active staff to complete. This is why I suggest we add a new rank, the [Moderator].
RE: Unacceptable. - tyler569 - 07-11-2014
That's a good thought PNW, and I'll go post a community vote to canvass opinions on this idea.
RE: Unacceptable. - newomaster - 07-11-2014
I agree wholeheartedly with cut. Forum moderation... moderation in general has certainly slacked over the years.
Possible solutions:
-Recycle admins. We do this already but we have become rather lenient on it. An admin inactive for more than two weeks should be replaced by a more active one.
-Introduce new chat and forum moderators. Basically, read this thread:
http://forum.openredstone.org/showthread.php?tid=4029
-Introduce new chat plugins for anti swearing and caps (Stym's server has a good example of this. It works well).
-Moderate forums more: Delete inappropriate posts, move/delete threads, give warning levels, etc.
-Make the application system more visitor friendly. Options for this include: Add a visitor accessible freebuild, rewrite the application and trial guides to give the visitor a better idea of what they're expected to do, Merge build and school applications (Perhaps a "Which server are you applying for" field in the application"), include some admin-written "sample applications" in the Read before Posting thread which demonstrate adequate application length and content.
-Keep our admins consistent on our standards of applications and trial.
RE: Unacceptable. - jxu - 07-11-2014
One issue I see that is particularly worrying is the large amounts of admins/staff who are AFK or even not present. I am not on the server 24/7 but embizone, magazorb and greatgamer stand out (not uniquely, I just can't be sure of others right now). The staff should have a minimum amount of time to spend online active every day.
I also believe staff should be active redstone builders. The position that has the power of pex and trialing should be complimented with someone who has a knowledge of redstone. This means brittany (if she is still staff), mort, xeo, edevil, etc. I apologize if I listed someone who's not staff or does actively build, but since build is down it's hard to judge.
Another issue is the lack of communication between users and staff. In fact, even in the staff there is a divide between the staff who "run" the server/plugins (i.e. xeo, mort) and those who don't (greatgamer, DJ8X, etc.) I feel like much of the server/plugins staff see the users as completely unable to ever participate in the server running process.
RE: Unacceptable. - Iceglade - 07-11-2014
I do think that the most important thing to do even beyond moderation changes is visitor accommodation. What percentage of visitors currently post an application, get it denied, and never return? I'd say it's higher than 90%. In the end, if we want to secure any indefinite future for ORE we have to stop "wasting" all the potential members that may need no more than a little nudge in the right direction. I think moderation changes, trial changes, visitor freebuild*, etc. all come down to this theme of accommodating visitors like the open server we claim to be.
*If it were my decision, I'd start with a freebuild. Most of the visitors that join once and leave do so because they, well, can't do anything.
RE: Unacceptable. - jxu - 07-11-2014
While a freebuild might help visitors stay on our server, I don't think it will help them want to become members.
Also, how come many veteran RDF members have time to visit these forums, but not time to build??
RE: Unacceptable. - Iceglade - 07-11-2014
(07-11-2014, 10:20 PM)͝ ͟ ͜ Wrote: While a freebuild might help visitors stay on our server, I don't think it will help them want to become members.
If you stay on the server and have the ability to build and talk with the community, I completely imagine that will instill some drive to become a member (especially if the process is easier and less unbelievably exclusive).
RE: Unacceptable. - PNWMan - 07-12-2014
I agree with, uh... random symbols? that members are completely capable of running the server. Many members have extensive knowledge of internet and server running concepts, while some staff don't. The primary goal of staff should be to run the server and keep the flow ranks among people moving, which could be alleviated partially off the staff with a moderator/foreman. Some staff fall short on one or even both of those goals, and possibly should be demoted to moderator/foreman if they are unable to handle these responsibilities. This doesn't mean they are irresponsible, for say, they just may not be able to be online as often or they don't have the knowledge of how to.
Staff training other staff is a VITAL part of server maintenance. When is OREUtils coming out? Probably not soon if the knowledgeable staff don't train the others of how to accomplish this.
RE: Unacceptable. - jxu - 07-12-2014
I don't know what you mean by "coming out", but OREUtils has been open source for a long time. Unfortunately it seems like the people with push access (red, xdot, xeo) have been gone for a while.
RE: Unacceptable. - JWNJWN - 07-12-2014
(07-12-2014, 12:11 AM)PNWMan Wrote: Staff training other staff is a VITAL part of server maintenance. When is OREUtils coming out? Probably not soon if the knowledgeable staff don't train the others of how to accomplish this.
OREUtils v2.0 Has been finished and was being tested on the test server before the Build server died recently. It was completely rewritten from the ground up, so you need to stop complaining about it; doing things takes time, even for admins.
RE: Unacceptable. - PNWMan - 07-12-2014
Alright, I was mistaken about the time that OREUtils was released. But this is not the point I'm trying to make here. There are other responsibilities such as combining school and build chat, restarting/rebooting servers, proper maintenance of the forums, etc. that a good portion of the staff don't know how to do. I'm saying that the staff that DOES know how to do this needs to take part in helping these unknowing staff.
RE: Unacceptable. - PhysoniumI - 07-12-2014
The general state of RDF/ORE (I don't know what to call it any more, it still is RDF to me
) is rather worrying. There are problems with more than just the state of moderators and other forms of staff. With the current outage and what I understand from Mort's post on the thread (possible loss of map, due to no external backups) there are a lot of shortcomings throughout.I agree that fixing the staff situation would be a step in the right direction, but without changes with all of the locations, the RDF/ORE won't return to it's former glory days (or have a possibility thereof).
Sorry for going somewhat off-topic but this all applies as UNACCEPTABLE (in my eyes). I am willing to help with this, as I have some experience with this and a great deal of the required hardware.
RE: Unacceptable. - tyler569 - 07-12-2014
(07-12-2014, 12:31 AM)͝ ͟ ͜ Wrote: I don't know what you mean by "coming out", but OREUtils has been open source for a long time. Unfortunately it seems like the people with push access (red, xdot, xeo) have been gone for a while.
(I know this is back a bit)
Anyone is free to make a pull request, and I have access to that repo to accept changes if anybody makes 'em.
In fact, if someone wants a project, the plot system needs to support UUIDs, anyone willing to help with that even a little bit would have my eternal gratitude.
I'll move this to a thread in "Programming"
RE: Unacceptable. - PNWMan - 07-12-2014
I agree with phys that the MAIN focus at the moment is the outage, backups, and a possible temp server. staff, moderator, teacher, etc. revisions MUST come later, after this giant mess is sorted through.
RE: Unacceptable. - tyler569 - 07-12-2014
I created a temp server earlier on the server hosting survival, hoping to have them both on the same machine, turns out I cannot because of port forwarding, so I ask you all, does it make sense to kill survival for the time being in exchange for a build/(school?map?)/(survival?map?canIdothis?) temp solution.
EDIT never mind, I just check survival and it's a ghost town even with everything else offline
am making.
RE: Unacceptable. - Chibill - 07-12-2014
Also I can work on the UUID stuff.
RE: Unacceptable. - tyler569 - 07-12-2014
My brain cracked when I started working on the permissions setup for the temp server, I'll finish it and get it up tomorrow afternoon (EST). I plan on redirecting mc., sc., and ss. all to it for the time being until we have something else.
RE: Unacceptable. - Cutlassw30 - 07-12-2014
I think that trails should be less about current redstone skill and more of how much someone wants to learn redstone. Now of course there are some min requirements but they should be a lot more general. Trials in general should be about seeing if someone is mature enough and seeing how much they want to learn redstone at a more complicated level. I actually propose a radically new idea for trials that I think should solve a lot of issues.
Step 1: User creates application and it gets accepted/denied much like it is now (all though with requirements changed and new fields such as "what do you want to learn");
Step 2: User gets accepted and instead of a 1 hour trial they get there own plot on a different world and this plot would say be 128x128. All other plots in that world that other users currently have would be protected to stop potential greifing. The user would build with out world edit in this world for sometime until it came to a vote on the forums to accept him as a full member. This would not only make applying and then start building once its accepted fast but also this is where we could put our regulations in place for how good someone should be to get the full member ship (yes this is kinda like a rank system based on skill but its community decided not admin decided and its only two ranks). This would remove trials and give a way for someone to build with the community and have fun while not currently having the required knowledge to be in the main world.
Step 3: After awhile a poll would get posted on the forums where only full members and staff could see/vote and we would debate to make this person a full member based on their skill, willingness to learn, and maturity.
I think this system would not only make the application and "trial" process faster but also if a user is not quite ready to join the full build server instead of cutting them off the the school server they get put into the Testificate or what ever you want to call it world and get to build with the community and everybody is happy.
Visitor: Current rank for someone who didn't make an application and just joined the server.
Testificate: Current rank for someone who is in the "trial" world.
Member: Full member ship and a person with this rank is trustworthy and active
Moderator: A member who is mature and can oversea applications and accept/deny them but has nothing to do with running the server.
Staff: Current staff rank
RE: Unacceptable. - PNWMan - 07-12-2014
While this seems interesting, I fail to see 2 differences. One is how would this protected area be different than school? It's basically a school on build, which some are even thinking about doing full scale. While build tends to be more mature than school, I don't think this alone is a valid reason to have "school on build."
The only real fix for this is to just focus on merging school with build if enough people agree, then actually continuing to do conventional trials, but discouraging (denying sounds harsh to a student) a trial if the (honestly, I think staff, but some might think...) members think they may not be mature or ready.***
The other thing I fail to see is, how does this speed up the trial process? Someone can go from joining ORE to member in as little as (likely) 30 minutes if they finish early and explain well, although the typical is probably 1 hour-1.25 hours. With this method, you mentioned that members must vote on if they should be in the server, and this just seems to take longer.
Quiet people might also be a small issue. You said that the community must vote on this instead of staff, which DOES make sense because the community of ORE is all of the members. But most members feel as though they are not an essential part of the governmental system, some don't even want to be. Adding this new this new standard to the member society might do absolutely nothing. Testificates who tend to be quiet may have to wait for days and be annoyed as to why nobody is doing anything. And that sucks, because quiet people seem to be the most mature and even skilled. So I do feel that the staff/moderator should do the trialing and accepting.
However, I do also see a few good things with this. I agree that maturity should also be a factor in the trial, AS WELL as redstone skill. It's important to show you can be part of the server by being respectful, not annoying, etc. and should be included with a trial. With the conventional 1 hour build trial, it is hard to judge that, but this new trial system gives these [Testificates] or whatever you call them the server experience, and all of us the ability to have them part of the server to see what they are like.
This also seems to be less intimidating*** to a student. Instead of a 1 hour trial where you build something and explain it, you get a plot and you build for a while and the community accepts you in.
***The process of accepting a trial based on maturity may still sound harsh. However, will this new process of having a separate world for Testificates be any less harsh? It won't, because it is still "harsh" to deny students membership based on maturity. Now, it will not be as intimidating, as intimidating implies being scared. Students might fear the trial more than this membership test run.
But matters of harsh/intimidation could also be of its own trial, to test their determination and will. If they give up or rage about being denied a trial (or in cut's case, membership to the server), do we really want them here? Of course not, so this seemingly negative factor could actually bring about a positive.***
I still suggest that we merge school with build (another discussion, not here) and accept trial applications when they are deemed mature AND when they have met the application requirements. I also feel that staff (and moderators) should take the main part in this, accepting and trialing students, while we leave members alone to do their own things. Members can take a role in this if they so wish by teaching students/testificates.
RE: Unacceptable. - scrounchtike - 07-12-2014
I agree with the most part with PNW, although i think merging school with build is a bad idea, this is for another topic.
I really feel like the current system of applications is quite unorganized. Like PNWMan said, shy people probably won't ask admins for application review. These people will probably leave the server and this is an issue, we are losing people because of our current application system. Now, with the moderator rank, i think it could be an idea to make application reviews more structured. For example, at 10 PM (idk which time) multiple moderators, in fact all the one connected, could go check apps on the forums. I personally think that just this could really help the structure of ORE.
Now, for what Cut said about getting Membership. I really think that having a world for "maturity test" is a great idea, but I don't think that members should decide about other testificates. Here are the reasons:
1. I don't think all the members are interested into ORE politics or into these type of mechanics. Most of us are here to redstone. So I think that only Mods or Staff should get the right to decide over a testificate.
2. If there is a lot of Members, ideas might be misunderstood. For example, maybe a testificate would be denied with Members and be accepted with a Staff. This doesn't really make sense. Plus, there might be confusion between the members: Someone saw him spam, but no one is sure if that is true.... All sort of things may happen that makes Members unreliable.
So, if like I said Mods and Staff are the only ones deciding over testificates, Cut's idea is a great way to improve ORE.
RE: Unacceptable. - jxu - 07-13-2014
I think that if we have a freebuild and a visitor builds something very exemplary and high-level, they should be able to skip the application/trial process.
RE: Unacceptable. - Nickster258 - 07-13-2014
Simple solution: New admins.
While admins are slowly falling away and not paying as much attention as they did at the start of ORE, they need to be replaced by newer admins, possibly elected ones. If a corporation has a president/CEO who is resigning, someone fills the space left by him. If an admin leaves, someone should fill the space left by that person.
I am currently in a situation where I have little extra time at the moment and when school starts back this fall I will be taking classes from two separate educational institutes while trying to maintain my summer job a couple of days of the week.
RE: Unacceptable. - jxu - 07-13-2014
(07-13-2014, 03:49 AM)Nickster258 Wrote: Simple solution: New admins.I agree - the current staff are reluctant to take away admin from inactive users, leading to an excess of staff.
While admins are slowly falling away and not paying as much attention as they did at the start of ORE, they need to be replaced by newer admins, possibly elected ones. If a corporation has a president/CEO who is resigning, someone fills the space left by him. If an admin leaves, someone should fill the space left by that person.
RE: Unacceptable. - PhysoniumI - 07-13-2014
How is it an excess of staff if most of the staff are never on? There isn't an imbalance, so there aren't TOO many, there aren't enough active ones.
RE: Unacceptable. - Guy1234567890 - 07-13-2014
Dcentrics
DJ8X
embizone
greatgamer34
JeremyG
Magazorb
newomaster
Ntwede
tyler569
This is the current list of staff for those of you who didn't know (you can just click on the 'forum team' link in the bottom right of the forum home page). My opinion is probably irrelevant due to my inactivity, but I feel I should say something.
First off, there isn't an excess of staff: 9 members of staff is certainly just about the right amount. Whether they are active or not is a different story...
Secondly, regarding the idea of a free build: We had a free build on school... what happened to it? Also, having the free build on build is probably not a good idea logistically because that would require that world guard be set up on build, whereas it should already be set up on school... (right?)
Also, adding the rank of moderator does not seem like a good idea to me for several reasons: Back when we had foremen and admins, there often was a blurring of the lines between the two ranks. One foreman who may be a capable server admin would be given permission on ssh and then the other foremen would begin to push for permissions beyond their rank. This eventually led to the consolidation of admin and foreman into staff.
If there is a problem in administration, those who are not fulfilling their roles should step down and be replaced, as it was intended...
RE: Unacceptable. - Chibill - 07-13-2014
Free build was disabled on school because when they expanded the world it did not work at the new areas and greif by visitors was happening.
RE: Unacceptable. - Nickster258 - 07-13-2014
I only count staff that are active. If they are inactive, I don't count them.
Also, I think it would be a great idea to combine school and build. Have one server hosting the same thing so not only teachers (who at times are not that smart) but also other members can have an input on things.
RE: Unacceptable. - jxu - 07-13-2014
(07-13-2014, 01:55 PM)Guy1234567890 Wrote: First off, there isn't an excess of staff: 9 members of staff is certainly just about the right amount. Whether they are active or not is a different story...I don't know if you've been on the server recently, but it's not like the good ol' days. There's certainly an excess considering the active people on our server. It's gotten to the point in which some members of our server have left (at least temporarily) from the inactivity (edevil, iceglade).
(07-13-2014, 01:55 PM)Guy1234567890 Wrote: Also, adding the rank of moderator does not seem like a good idea to me for several reasons: Back when we had foremen and admins, there often was a blurring of the lines between the two ranks. One foreman who may be a capable server admin would be given permission on ssh and then the other foremen would begin to push for permissions beyond their rank. This eventually led to the consolidation of admin and foreman into staff.That may have worked then but it's clear that the current system is falling apart. A noticeable amount of time the server only has 0-2 people on. The way to solve your issue would be to have clear guidelines on what admins and foremen have the permission to do or not do.
RE: Unacceptable. - tyler569 - 07-13-2014
(07-13-2014, 01:55 PM)Guy1234567890 Wrote: Also, adding the rank of moderator does not seem like a good idea to me for several reasons: Back when we had foremen and admins, there often was a blurring of the lines between the two ranks. One foreman who may be a capable server admin would be given permission on ssh and then the other foremen would begin to push for permissions beyond their rank. This eventually led to the consolidation of admin and foreman into staff.
I don't think this is relevant, to me that sounds like a mismanagement of the moderator rank, I assure you, if I have any influence, no one would *ever* get a permission their rank didn't entitle them to.
I believe the extreme support this has gotten from the community means it warrants a try, I will make clear to anyone who gets mod that if the experiment fails they will drop back to member.
RE: Unacceptable. - Guy1234567890 - 07-14-2014
(07-13-2014, 09:51 PM)tyler569 Wrote:(07-13-2014, 01:55 PM)Guy1234567890 Wrote: Also, adding the rank of moderator does not seem like a good idea to me for several reasons: Back when we had foremen and admins, there often was a blurring of the lines between the two ranks. One foreman who may be a capable server admin would be given permission on ssh and then the other foremen would begin to push for permissions beyond their rank. This eventually led to the consolidation of admin and foreman into staff.
I don't think this is relevant, to me that sounds like a mismanagement of the moderator rank, I assure you, if I have any influence, no one would *ever* get a permission their rank didn't entitle them to.
I believe the extreme support this has gotten from the community means it warrants a try, I will make clear to anyone who gets mod that if the experiment fails they will drop back to member.
The added permissions were not of my own doing, since I clearly opposed them. Keep in mind that you are not the only one in charge: it's not always the case that actions are discussed with the entire staff team before they are executed.
Quote:That may have worked then but it's clear that the current system is falling apart. A noticeable amount of time the server only has 0-2 people on. The way to solve your issue would be to have clear guidelines on what admins and foremen have the permission to do or not do.
I didn't say that the consolidation of the ranks was a success
RE: Unacceptable. - Guy1234567890 - 07-14-2014
Oh I should mention that I'm not opposed to change: I just wanted to give some input as to what has and hasn't worked in the past
RE: Unacceptable. - greatgamer34 - 07-15-2014
Now if i remember correctly, me being an asshole was all part of getting people who don't want to take the time to apply correctly out of the way fast. When new people join the server i wholeheartedly welcomed them. Very rarely am i busy and cannot deal with a new visitor. And i usually direct them to the forums instantly.
(random symbols guy)
Quote:Another issue is the lack of communication between users and staff. In fact, even in the staff there is a divide between the staff who "run" the server/plugins (i.e. xeo, mort) and those who don't (greatgamer, DJ8X, etc.) I feel like much of the server/plugins staff see the users as completely unable to ever participate in the server running process.
Im not really the guy to be doing plugins and stuff like that. I stick to forum/build/school moderation.
*edit*
I have been offline for about 2 days, i just found this!
RE: Unacceptable. - jxu - 07-18-2014
You have known about this for quite a while, but you still refuse to change great
RE: Unacceptable. - Guy1234567890 - 07-19-2014
'Being an asshole' is never an option
RE: Unacceptable. - Ntwede - 08-05-2014
It might be wise to replace me with a more capable staff, especially becuase I am very likely the least active staff member.