|
Post by President Bao on Jun 14, 2015 14:08:27 GMT
Hey guys, back, still alive for now, here's hoping. ---- .... or I guess we can keep discussing this. I love a rousing debate as much as the next person, but this is unnecessary... and the only reason I'm not fixing this myself is cause you guys mentioned you don't like it when I do that. but that works both ways (Vi, Kaula and even you too Zucetta), you definitely need to know the rules and precedents you're meant to be enforcing, and apply verdicts equally/consistently for all members so that everyone is treated fairly, to serve the members not the other way around. It is also the role of an administrator to keep on eye on both members and other staff, and step in to ensure the rules are being followed (this isn't a new development and has been in place since this site's inception), I love it when I check something and *don't* have to intervene as it means less work. You're turning this into a protracted deal when it doesn't need to be, you made a mistake, but lets fix it. KIM - rules knowledge isn't something that just 'happens', I'm no human souls-encyclopedia, when I don't know an answer or am unsure on specifics - I research. I check not just the specific rules section, but also search for relevant threads and previous rulings as part of due diligence. 'Shooting from the hip' is not a justice system. If need be, start cataloguing a 'nitty gritty' extended rules list to track such precedents and rulings, if kept up to date that would be a great asset to have. You're being portrayed as unreasonable because you jumped into the thread heavily implying that it was being weighted against you when, in fact, all the discussion around the topic already had it pretty much as a foregone conclusion that it was going to go one way. This WILL generate extra work because it'll set the vote back to 0 and cancel the last FIVE DAYS of voting time. That's pretty damn aggravating, frankly.
Your reworded option there still doesn't actually fix the issue, because it is still implying Hyoza wants to stop players having input. That is not the case. That has never been the case. I'm not sure if you're deliberately misconstruing the option, or whether you really don't understand it. I'd suggest the four options would be better presented as:
> Allow staff to implement rules and mechanics changes without player polls. > Resolve the existing issues (four keys) to speed up implementation > Elect specific representatives for given issues to speed up implementation > No change, implementation is at an acceptable pace. As a quick opening note - An important change in thinking when being part of a system like Souls has is learning to be part of the solution instead of part of the problem. it may have taken some prompting, but good to see you stepping up zuni. now(sorry to quote but) ; If you are correct then the new poll will represent this Zuni, and I'll finally cast my own vote and we'll see specifically what option the community wants. Also, you cannot pin time against me, I raised my concern on the first day, and framed it specifically by the second. As previously noted, the rules/precedence on this are cut and dry and the matter should have been rectified at that point. re more work - as vipoi outlined, currently each option is intended to represent two entirely separate proposals each. Which means we still need another poll anyway to get an actual answer. (To address your misconstruction comment; The proposal is for staff to be able to change rules/mechanics without community input or advanced warning... Staff will also be able to have input on community discussions/polls, but the reverse will not be so. Additionally they would be able to add extra conditions/modifications to a community passed verdict simply by having a separate staff-only poll. These are all forms of restriction; not exclusion, but they do mean community will only have as much say as staff allow. Thus my wording restrict input. Either way, solved now, lets go for it)(1)
|
|
|
Post by President Bao on Jun 14, 2015 14:09:00 GMT
I don't know how you'd intend to shame me Bao, I'm trying to do my job in the fairest way I perceive as a moderator. Right now, I see you as being the unfair actor here for reasons that Zuni has articulated. If each player as you say 'are entitled to have their input represented to their satisfaction' then why are you fighting the much more accurate language of the 'Allow staff to implement rules and mechanics changes without player polls' over the incorrect "Restrict new input on changes to staff only to speed up implementation'? Players could still implement cold-started new reforms under Hyoza's proposed system, so your option would be incorrect, further, you framing Hyoza's voting option would be in disagreement with your own words in this thread.
You've still not outlined why your system is different from a 'nothing in the rules changes' outcome, it's just like adding two no options in my opinion. The first no is a 'No without explanation' then your option is saying 'No, because this is how it should be working'. If I'm wrong please show me where you're proposing that can be enacted that is different from a null vote and I'll gladly eat my socks and ask that it be amended. The Koramund option wasn't added I'd guess because it'd weigh the vote towards yes, and further, the admins have objected to electing staff for popularity contest reasons (back when the staff entry rules were changed by Rev). uh... I'm a multi-talented fellow, but time travel isn't quite in my repertoire Vi , I can't have fought against something which was posted after me. It was also actually me who encouraged Zuni to post up an alternative to my own example... Actually Vi are you okay? this is the fourth time you've said something which doesn't make much sense, I originally thought you were just being difficult, but now kinda worried. Even so, I need to debunk your arguments it seems, so shame or no shame here goes: > 'there have been no alternatives to a restructure':false, we have four proposals, framing a poll in such a way as to exclude these submissions is in breach of polling rules(as outlined in the previous quote I posted, please refer to this). Additionally... technically all 3 options count as a restructure since they all involve a modification to the processes currently being enacted.
> 'your proposal has no actionable content so it was excluded'Every single section had a concluding sentence detailing an actionable plan, with the words 'to solve this, we'. Your response demonstrates you didn't even read the proposal > 'Adding more than one yes or no option creates bias'Polls represent specific proposals derived from the discussion thread, not just a binary general sentiment(which does not secure a finalised verdict on which specific implementation people want); Your own actions already demonstrate you're aware of this though , so it was a pretty frivolous argument to try and use here. > 'Your proposal is the same as a no vote'My proposal is a solution to the issue, where we change how we're doing things so that we have better record-keeping, coverage, communication and consistency, while a no vote would be for everything to remain unchanged. Another example though that you did not actual review the proposal, and instead just skimmed the four titles. ----- And lastly... the existing rules remain in place until a new set of rules replace them, as decided by the community . This means that if people vote in support of Traiph and Koras proposal, then that would take precedence over any existing ruling to the latter. So you and I are welcome to place our votes elsewhere(as fellow members of the site), but if the majority of the community ultimately decided they like that proposal best then that is what gets enforced. Staff are street cops only, we don't make/control the law we just make sure it's followed. (2)
|
|
|
Post by President Bao on Jun 14, 2015 14:12:25 GMT
There are 3 change proposals in the thread plus the default no change option. To reiterate - polls are to be made based off the proposals made in the discussion thread, not exclude them, it is the reason the discussions first rule exists. (Also refer to last comment to vi above. All changes 'contradict' previous rulings, that is what it means to change. We only enact a given rule for so long as the community decides it is active, and enacting does not include censoring alternative proposals, you know this. If a new vote revokes or modifies a given rule or mechanic, then then it's our job to enforce whatever the new rule is.) As for split polls, those polls you are referring to were not managed by myself(and blame assignment is unproductive... as I've previously stated), nor are they the usual process for a simple four-option vote such as this. Transfer voting was split because each poll was dealing with a different aspect of transfers, aspects which if presented in a single poll would require too many cross-combinations. These polls you reference were for - 1. whether they should be kept 2. how many times they should be allowed 3. if you should be able to transfer zeni too 4. how are they attained
which if done in one poll would have been: > no > yes, no zeni, one transfer > yes, yes zeni, one transfer > yes, yes capped zeni, one transfer > yes, no zeni, two transfer > yes, yes zeni, two transfer > yes, yes capped zeni, two transfer ... repeat^ x21 entries
Since we have only 4 options, not 24 options, there is no reason to structure this poll as per those special cases, and instead we should structure it as per every poll we've done except those four.... Come on Boli, you're being difficult for the sake of being difficult. more importantly though: I've never once implied that our current staff do not work hard and I never once *blamed* anyone, because blaming is a pointless/unproductive exercise that I have no time for. I don't deal in blame, blame is fools gold(no value). I listen or observe issues(be they game mechanic or organisation), and then I come up with solutions, because that's what a designer does. However Zucetta, I question where you're estimating my workload from. With all due respect... please don't devalue my constant contributions to this site I shouldn't have to justify like this, but to give some perspective on workload: I have dedicated over two years of my life to here, every single day without ever breaking, in spite of work commitments and failing health, driving this place from empty[all except myself and pieter] into the most active dragonball roleplay I personally have ever seen (easily 3-4 times larger than resurrection at it's peak). I develop the art assets, promotional architecture, and programming solutions to everything here, most of which isn't even front-end visible. I don't even get to roleplay (purely administration and implementation) and yet I have the most posts on this site, I was the grader for over a quater of this sites lifetime[alongside pieter and later oguma],  and until a couple of weeks ago 95% of char apps were me, averaging 4-5 apps per day with the occasional lul of 1 or 2. I also have over 20 pages of pms totalling well over a thousand extra messages on top of that, and it generally grows at a rate of 3-7 per day, I work on this site long into the morning many nights and every weekend(it's past 4 am as I type this)  .  These last three weeks have been the least busy I've been in a long time(and by least busy I still mean *quick search*... 56 pms, and 39 thread responses) , largely due to external complications [which I made preparations for], and yet I still find the time to check in daily, and respond/administrate...
The moderators do a lot of work keeping on top of the grading and volunteering their presence, this place wouldn't keep running without their help as we grade about 6 to 8 threads per day, but please don't insult me by implying I don't more than pull my weight or trying to demonise me and my proposal as 'blaming'. Come on man-guy-bro...
|
|
Koramund
Archived
PL: 121,168
Bio Metabolize(x3)
Zeni: 2,003
Shoki: 7,708
Tag: @koramund
OOC Name: Saiyan, Namekian, Human
Posts: 694
|
Post by Koramund on Jun 14, 2015 15:17:37 GMT
Ey Bao, I feel your pain. I was literally told that my idea was denied from a previous ruling which is fair, but for you? Right here it seems that everyone is feud up with having to ask your approval for everything, and have grown a minor personal vendetta against you. At least in my eyes, the reactions seem more pissed off then informative. The staff from what I've seen have done metric TONS of work, but are bottlenecked by constantly needing to refer to you or Zucceta. I believe that will also speed up things, we need to remove the two Bottle Necks. We need solid rulings from you both and Pieter. We need a damned area where each and every rule is stated, and there is a way to help gauge things, instead of just all of you three deciding what is what, and sometimes even on a whim (I had literally 3 different answers from Bao and Zucceta in regards to just my Bulk up form, and then the 4th answer from Pieter just decided it and was agreed on (At least I hope so ._.))
If we have this more informed staff, then we need the Administration less and they can work on their projects while Staff's moral would be increased by being trusted more and the fact that they can do their work at a higher efficiency. Without solid rulings, Admins can just veto whatever they want (Which I heard when I was in staff has happened multiple times has basically happened from Bao alone but more as a soft Veto as Vipoi mentioned) or they can make up the rules whenever they want (I was literally denied to learn healing by Zucceta not because you have to be Namekian, but as he put it, I could do to many things) (Another example, Bao didn't want bulk up to actually effect stats at first, it was just spend a tech slot to learn the skill when you have it, but Pieter and Zucceta were otherwise to it). Solid rules, if staff can have these rules, then we would not HAVE these arguments. We need to be all civil, and currently I feel like we are almost past that threshold. Back to this topic, I wish for this bottleneck to be removed so the Staff can do what we want them to, their jobs. Staff are the most informed, and the least biased. They want this system to WORK! THe average person here just wants to have an advantage, and I am highly pointing to Athren right here and his shameful display of being a jerk. Staff has enough members so that when everyone votes, there will be a balance and they can decide what is right.
|
|
Zucceta
Administrator
PL: 379,083
Oozaru(x10) MSSj(x15) S.Ooz(x22) SSj2(25x)
Zeni: 2290
Tag: @admin
OOC Name: therevolution
Posts: 2,309
|
Post by Zucceta on Jun 14, 2015 16:30:57 GMT
There are 3 change proposals in the thread plus the default no change option. To reiterate - polls are to be made based off the proposals made in the discussion thread, not exclude them, it is the reason the discussions first rule exists. (Also refer to last comment to vi above. All changes 'contradict' previous rulings, that is what it means to change. We only enact a given rule for so long as the community decides it is active, and enacting does not include censoring alternative proposals, you know this. If a new vote revokes or modifies a given rule or mechanic, then then it's our job to enforce whatever the new rule is.) As for split polls, those polls you are referring to were not managed by myself(and blame assignment is unproductive... as I've previously stated), nor are they the usual process for a simple four-option vote such as this. Transfer voting was split because each poll was dealing with a different aspect of transfers, aspects which if presented in a single poll would require too many cross-combinations. These polls you reference were for - 1. whether they should be kept 2. how many times they should be allowed 3. if you should be able to transfer zeni too 4. how are they attained
which if done in one poll would have been: > no > yes, no zeni, one transfer > yes, yes zeni, one transfer > yes, yes capped zeni, one transfer > yes, no zeni, two transfer > yes, yes zeni, two transfer > yes, yes capped zeni, two transfer ... repeat^ x21 entries
Since we have only 4 options, not 24 options, there is no reason to structure this poll as per those special cases, and instead we should structure it as per every poll we've done except those four.... Come on Boli, you're being difficult for the sake of being difficult. more importantly though: I've never once implied that our current staff do not work hard and I never once *blamed* anyone, because blaming is a pointless/unproductive exercise that I have no time for. I don't deal in blame, blame is fools gold(no value). I listen or observe issues(be they game mechanic or organisation), and then I come up with solutions, because that's what a designer does. However Zucetta, I question where you're estimating my workload from. With all due respect... please don't devalue my constant contributions to this site I shouldn't have to justify like this, but to give some perspective on workload: I have dedicated over two years of my life to here, every single day without ever breaking, in spite of work commitments and failing health, driving this place from empty[all except myself and pieter] into the most active dragonball roleplay I personally have ever seen (easily 3-4 times larger than resurrection at it's peak). I develop the art assets, promotional architecture, and programming solutions to everything here, most of which isn't even front-end visible. I don't even get to roleplay (purely administration and implementation) and yet I have the most posts on this site, I was the grader for over a quater of this sites lifetime[alongside pieter and later oguma],  and until a couple of weeks ago 95% of char apps were me, averaging 4-5 apps per day with the occasional lul of 1 or 2. I also have over 20 pages of pms totalling well over a thousand extra messages on top of that, and it generally grows at a rate of 3-7 per day, I work on this site long into the morning many nights and every weekend(it's past 4 am as I type this)  .  These last three weeks have been the least busy I've been in a long time(and by least busy I still mean *quick search*... 56 pms, and 39 thread responses) , largely due to external complications [which I made preparations for], and yet I still find the time to check in daily, and respond/administrate...
The moderators do a lot of work keeping on top of the grading and volunteering their presence, this place wouldn't keep running without their help as we grade about 6 to 8 threads per day, but please don't insult me by implying I don't more than pull my weight or trying to demonise me and my proposal as 'blaming'. Come on man-guy-bro... 1. We implemented a change to the staff system to deal with issues such as people like Athren, Koramund or Kiara becoming staff. I refuse to implement any suggestions that revoke this decision, as we need staff who can pull their weight and won't abuse their power. 2. Your suggestion is not a systemic restructure and does not apply to this poll. That's two of four of your 'options' eliminated. 3. The rules on suggestions/polling options are NOT cut and dry. You never took the time to even write them down for the rest of us, one example of the reasons why your system has failed; your assumed expectations of members of staff. NOBODY knows what you want. You often swoop in when something has been resolved by debate and voting, essentially vetoing it by implementing something with the excuse 'but this is what is intended'. Stated intent is farting against the wind. That is fallacy, and not an excuse I'll longer accept. 4. Your comments to and on staff in the past, in posts and cbox, have given many staff that you not respect their contribution. Most, if not all, do not feel you respect them, and I can see it even if you vocally disagree. (as an aside, my comment was not to demonise you or suggest that you don't work hard on this site, but I do believe they work harder than you or I by simply going through most of the menial stuff. If you think I actually suggested you haven't put work in (which would be ludicrous), I think you need to step away, as this is quite embarrassing.) 5. As another aside, you claim that we need to the rules and precedents we're meant to be enforcing. I agree, as you seem to state stuff that contradicts every other thing that staff members say. Actually telling people your expectations would be immensely appreciated. Remember you are not the only 'go-to' and we might be able to develop some internal consistency.
The way this forum is run is an exercise in futility and petty bureaucracy. Give staff more power to implement systems and mechanics first, with suggested revisions by members if necessary. I have already begun to operate in this manner, for things such as the Afterlife Tutors and will continue to do so. This is the system from now on, with a 31 to 3 vote on the yes. Technically, the 'no' vote represents the three alternative views regardless. The 'yes' vote is specifically for Hyoza's restructure, and took 31 votes. Dragging this out any longer is ' being difficult for the sake of being difficult' and I will not do so any longer.
|
|