Tempest

Roach, I recognise your post as opinions - and, of course, you are perfectly en!@#$%^&*led to them. However, there are a few points which I believe are erroneous and should be corrected. I will not argue about ship settings and the direction of the zone as a whole. I've already spent many posts addressing this issue and you should be quite familiar with my views. However, your opinions on your fellow ERs seem unjustified. During the past week or so, I've seen more insults and flames thrown about on staff chat (involving certain ERs) than I have encountered in the past year. The cause of this problem is, as I see it, the whole 'Best ER' mentality. Do not judge your fellow ERs or presume to know the reasons for which they entered staff. If you claim to be the 'Best ER' in 17th, then back your claim up with actions. Follow the protocol. Now, I am not directing this at you, or any other ER - for the most part, the ERs we have are generally great, enthusiastic hosts. However, perhaps reading the section of 'Professionalism' and 'At!@#$%^&*ude' will help a little. Part of being an ER is the at!@#$%^&*ude you show not only to players, but to other staffers too: note that 'A hospitable and polite at!@#$%^&*ude must be kept at all times'. ERs are a team of people - there is no greater or lesser ER and should be treated as such: are you in compe!@#$%^&*ion? No! If a new ER isn't as proficient as you are, then encourage and help him: don't scorn and pour abuse upon him. Furthermore, I ask you to consider the following question: which is the better ER? He who brags about his accomplishments and superiority (even if this is true) or he who keeps these things to himself, and let those around him decide? What, indeed, is the point of labelling someone as 'Best ER' if not to gain recognition for one's achievements and thereby to belie the entire point of being an ER? The label qualifies the idea of some sort of compe!@#$%^&*ion and objective scale of worth. You say that there's 'Staff Greed' - isn't this very label contributing to the culture? Now, about this 'Staff Greed' issue. Are mods not supposed to cover every ?help command? Would you ignore a ?host command as an ER? Should mods not watch and issue bans with thought? To be promoted takes a whole lot more than answering ?help commands and being friendly and helpful. Not everyone loves conflict: some prefer to avoid and negotiate - and what is wrong with trying to be friendly and helpful? Should we all strive to make enemies in 17th? Is it not somewhat unhealthy to actually despise or hate another player in what is essentially a game? My words sound harsher in writing than in speech, and for that I apologise. This is, after all, an opinion, and should not be mistaken as anything more: however, I am curious about a number of these points and eagerly await a response.

Get well soon, LW

Unlikely.

Congrats!

Ttttt-bbbooooonnnnneeee!

An excellent idea

Okay, that seems fine but for one more objection: is it possible to observe all of staff's actions like you suggest? Would you advocate, for example, that old system in which all new ERs had to p!@#$%^&* a test based on the mod protocol? Anyway, with that done, on to your second action.

To be honest, I think some of the objections I made in that last post were somewhat irrelevant. Please feel free to ignore them. The relevant ones were those commenting on practical methods to implement those actions into the zone. It's too early in the morning and I'm not thinking straight Summary: Further, you can't be online to monitor the activities of newer ERs and Mods all the time. How would you ensure that the protocol is followed? How can you make sure that new staffers read the protocol? When would you consider an ER to be trained? How would you ensure all new ERs are given adequate training? What would the age limit be?

The idea is without doubt beneficial. A stricter emphasis on the protocol and further training may be very useful to the zone as a whole. But these ideas need to be developed with a practical emphasis, and these questions spring from it: Objection 1: The mod protocol is slightly out of date. The protocol is somewhat old and may require updating. Who would you choose to update the protocol? Objection 2: Enforcing the mod protocol may be difficult. It's very difficult to enforce an adherence to the protocol. If someone complains a staffer was verbally abusing him or her in PMs, but has no proof to back these claims up and the staffer denies these claims, what would you do? Further, you can't be online to monitor the activities of newer ERs and Mods all the time. How would you ensure that the protocol is followed? How can you make sure that new staffers read the protocol? Objection 3: The extent of training. When would you consider an ER to be trained? Scenario: A well-trained new ER hosts an event but forgets to *timer, *scorereset or *lock. Players complain. What would you do? EDIT: What would the age limit be? (It'd be great if you could add some practical methods to integrate these ideas into the zone, cos then the objections'd be shorter)

Well, we've been getting a lot of anti-staff and 'the zone is dying' threads again. A lot of people seem to have some objection with one or more parts of the zone, whether it be staff, settings, map or something else altogether. It seems to be an interesting idea, then, to hear some of the proposed solutions to these complaints. So far, we're arguing over 'who is right', or 'which players speak for the zone' but not actually talking about the possible solutions to these perceived problems. A lot of these ideas may have merit and be beneficial to the zone, and it would be folly to ignore them altogether. This, then, is a hypothesis: if you (and I'm referring to Delic here) were in control of the zone, from staff to settings to the smallest details, what would you do to change it? The format for this is simple. We'll begin with your first action (and one action only, please). I will then post possible problems to this action, and we can then discuss methods around these problems. After these are resolved, we can continue to the next action, and so forth. When we reach a point where it is deemed that the hypothesis no longer has merit, or has grown out of its constraints, we shall end it and evaluate its success. Remember that this is simply a method of allowing us to understand each other's opinions more fully, and not some kind of flame war or similar thread. If you find my objections to be too unreasonable, please tell me and I'll review it. So, without further ado, let's start.

I'm really broke this Christmas. Please donate to the poor (eyes that hair dryer greedily).

GhettoSmurf: Bah! Play more 17th! Alas, what Roach said is true. We can't host -*BAD WORD*- now since MotherBot is down. MS2, however, remains a possibility.

"And no, it's definitely not impossible to be objective. Not for me anyway. Anyone who's only subjective is ignorant." Perhaps we differ on how we define objective and subjective: "this staff does not function like a staff zone is supposed to function." That is an opinion. It may or may not be truth. "People who are in charge of staff, aren't real players. They are people who stopped playing as much because they can't get better at the game, so they join staff for more excitement." Again, an opinion. Not an objective truth. It _is_ impossible for any single player, in terms of discussing the topic at hand, to be objective. The above are opinions - it seems impossible to me for anyone to claim to understand and be able to speak for the entirety of staff as you do and still claim it as fact. But this seems to me to be a pedantic point. Shall we leave it as it is? "I've said this about a million times: changing back to old settings/map would be a very ignorant move, I agree... Nobody likes it when everything changes all of a sudden after you're used to a certain environment." I'm not sure exactly what your views are on this point. "It is always best to have loyal players than just players who could quit any second." First, you acknowledge growth as the primary objective for the zone. The only way for the zone to grow is via newbies. Now, there is another difference in understanding between us: when I said 'two newbies', I should have clarified the following things. There are two forms of 'newbie', as it were. The first are those who come, play the zone, and will perhaps quit after a week or so. There are others, however, that come, play the zone, and get involved with it. Eventually, the latter group develop into 'vets'. Now, you seem to be dealing entirely with the first group of 'newbies'. I was referring to both. A zone can never grow without an influx of newbies, and it seems difficult to distinguish the two groups without the benefit of hindsight. Thus, 'newbies', whose presence is the sole factor by which growth can be measured, are of the utmost importance. Therefore, as long as number of dedicated newbies coming in > number of veterans going out, I will maintain my current stance on the zone. Oh, and veterans do leave. Even when it's not due to zone settings. They move on, as all players do. They're simply 'newbies' who've stayed for a certain period of time. "If anything, (the past months anyway) staff has been driving them away." Yet again, I'll refer to the 'equation' above. Hmm. Now you state: "For 17th, it was the perfect shipset. Each ship had a specific mission and was specialized in specific areas, and the shipset as a whole was very balanced. The current shipset is a joke if you compare." But also: "changing back to old settings/map would be a very ignorant move, I agree." So, then: what do you propose? "As 17th Pub is right now, the newbies will remain newbies forever. No joke. The skill level in 17th Pub is so limited that newbies won't be able to develop their skills." You're measuring them by your definition of skill. The definition of skill changes as the zone itself changes. If you're saying they won't be as skilled in duels, or leagues or whatever, then perhaps. But they will certainly be more skilled at playing the current public map, with public sets. "and now they can't even play as much 17th as they used to play because nobody comes to events." Agreed. That's starting to get really, really annoying. "Eventually I would test the newold gameplay. The way 17th was made to be played, but in a modern form with more action and possibilities." That sounds a lot like what Vile's currently planning.

Heehee, looking forward to it already I've been speccing a whole lot cos of uni application stuff and will be kinda busy 'til late January. (Sigh)

Pff, I can still outspider ya, Greased What do you mean 'destroyed'? Oh, about the hosting thing: I've hosted about 2 games of SBL, 10 or 20 rounds of Speedball and 6 rounds of -*BAD WORD*- in the past week or so, and I host far less than a lot of staff (Mav, for instance). We've even tried MS2 twice, when there were 30 and 50 people online. We received SIX players. SIX.

"Tell me, how am I not objective? What do you see me as? A "Jav League Player" or a "Pub Player" or a "Newbie" or what?" The point I was making here is that no matter how much you've played, or play, it's still impossible to be objective and it seems arrogant to claim anyone can know the 'truth' about the zone. As long as you are one person, and involved in the zone, your opinions can only ever be subjective - an opinion, as seperated from fact. "Dude, we've lost more than 50 players since the fück-ups began." Aye, in comparison with the old n/s pub, that much is true. I still don't get why we started changing the map and sets when so dramatically when only a few modifications were necessary. Alas, I see no way of magically restoring 17th to the old map/sets, especially with our newer players being more and more acclimatised to our current map/sets. Remember Halloween? The old players loved it. The newer ones didn't. "And when I say "players" I don't mean just the number next to the zone name before you enter, I mean loyal players who were a part of 17th." Here's a difference between our viewpoints. I don't care about older players who were here when we had n/s maps and old sets. Don't get me wrong - veterans are an important part of the zone - but I care about them in that they are players, and only players. As such, I believe newbies and veterans should be treated equally in this regard. Growth, after all, is of prime importance - and gaining two good newbies in exchange for a vet seems perfectly fine to me. "Staff didn't do anything to attract those players, they just came." Perhaps, but staff will always play a part in _keeping_ those players. It's the map, sets and service that matters, and we don't seem to be doing too badly in that respect. Occasions where a ?help or ?cheater are disregarded are very few in my experience. "17th was a lot more fun in the past, I'm sure that anyone who remembers will agree with me." I've been here in the older days. You know that. And yes, I do find it more fun. The problem is that newer players probably won't, and it seems fine to accept that and get on with what we have. If you do prefer the older settings, perhaps you should speak to Vile about his current plans. They seem to coincide somewhat. "And that's why the zone hasn't grown but fallen apart, it's like dead now, nothing is going on, it's boring." Remember when you asked me, above, which category of player I would put you in? I would have chosen 'Pub Vet' and 'Jav Vet'. But not 'Newbie'. And there we have a problem. 17th may be boring to vets who've been here since oldmap and are used to the old style of play - but the newer playerbase seem to be coming, staying, growing, and can you say that the newbies we recieve find the zone boring? I really need to figure out how those quote tags work :/ Ah, and a question: if you could do anything with 17th, staff, pub map, pub sets, etc. - what would you do?

Not to sound offensive, but it just seems to be you and Foof who're actually complaining. I can't talk about jav league players, because I've never been one and nor do I know many players who have - but from a public point of view, I've seen few to no people who're actually complaining about upper staff. I fail to see what the opinions (and they are opinions - not objective fact, considering nearly none of us can claim anything about the zone objectively) of 2 people (which, you'll note, seem to have recieved notable opposition on the forums already) are going to accomplish. Now, I don't mean these opinions aren't important, but claiming they are grounded in fact is a flaw. A single log (which could be taken as being flippant, amongst many other interpretations) is hardly enough to change what is, in reality, a subjective opinion to objective fact. Now, to support my view: I disagree with your views. The _majority_ of staff seem to disagree with your views. The majority of pubbers I've spoken to seem to disagree with your views. I've listed a few of the recent advantages upper staff have brought to the zone. As such, I fail to see any specific problems. Your complaints seem to argue that 17th's staff aren't connected with the playerbase. I don't see how you can claim this without somehow claiming to know what the playerbase wants. You seem to make out that you are somehow the embodiment of the entire playerbase and their opinions, not factoring in the 'facts' that the playerbase regularly has conflicting opinions and that it would, objectively, be impossible. Further, the evidence seems to point the other way. 17th still appears to be growing, albeit slowly, with a good amount of players at peak times. 17th has suffered no recent loss in population, nor any signs of negative growth. I therefore don't see any problems in the governing of the zone as long as these factors remain so. Believe me, if the staff do anything as bad as the whole javs with ports thing, I'd be the first to complain. But as far as I can see, _nothing has changed_ (negatively, anyway). I just don't see what you're arguing about. (When I'm arguing, I can get kinda ratty about things - remember I'm addressing your viewpoints, not yourself as far as my experience shows, you seem to be a good person so don't take it personally)

It just seems (to me at least) that 17th is doing fine. We're hardly losing any pop, and our player levels are pretty good, espec. at peak times. Upper staff seem to be doing well, with the new bots and tiles being more recent developments (and letting mods host -*BAD WORD*-, which is always nice).

So we should fire half of upper staff, half of lower staff, and then flounder without a plan for a while until we somehow find some people whose vision for the zone totally coincide with the population's and then leave them to figure out how to implement them? There's a lot of problems you list (a lot of which I don't agree with, but that's just me), but few solutions.

This seems to be quickly turning into another flame thread. Maka - How do you propose a staff should work?

SOME SQUUUAAADD! WOOOOO!

QUOTE: funny, you really dont know what your talking about It may be so, but at least tell me *how* and *why*.

Joker, it's just the way I'm seeing it by looking at all these threads. If you can argue against it, please enlighten me. I'm trying to see if you can justify your opinions. I've said nothing that can't be logically inferred from you and ntfx's posts. I'm not trying to offend you. I'm trying to see if your arguments have enough integrity to hold up to criticism.

Okay, long post, so please be patient. Joker/Stylez/Whatever it is you choose to call yourself these days - I have very little against you. I know almost nothing about the cir-*BAD WORD*-stances upon which you base your complaint, and can only comment on the views and opinions expressed here. I can't judge your argument, as such, but I feel obliged to raise a few objections on the validity of your argument and various inconsistencies in your posts. The basic thrust of your argument, as I interpret it, is that ntfx's actions against you were unjustified in that you only claimed to be able to circulate the source without actually doing so. To further your claim, you've brought up an example for another staffer who committed a similar act but against whom no action was taken. It can be argued, however, that ntfx was perfectly justified in taking action against you. The transgressions against the zone rules are as follows: threatening to spread Continuum source code and, as I gathered from Rifleman's quotes, abusing ?help after numerous warnings. You defend yourself against the first allegation by claiming that you were "bull-*BAD WORD*-ting about all the source code -*BAD WORD*-". Nonetheless, you are making the !@#$%^&*umption here that ntfx is aware of this. If he were not aware, would it not be reasonable to take a pre-emptive action to prevent a future transgression? Perhaps leeway is given to offenses of a less substantial nature, but surely spreading the source code is an important enough reason to take such action? You also argue that a staff member sent trojans to an unidentified party, and you seem to infer that since no action was taken in the above case, your own case should also be exempt. This is, however, flawed: your accusation about sending the trojan has no direct consequence on the zone - nor was it committed within the bounds of Continuum. It would be logical, then, to accept that the two cases are sufficiently different to warrant no credit by direct comparison? I see no defense in your posts which defends the second offense, and I can only conclude that you cannot, in good faith, construct a valid argument against this accusation. Do the rules not clearly state that abuse of ?help and ?cheater will result in intervention by a moderator? QUOTE: "but still you people are just like me, it's just that I don't suck up to anyone of you people, thus I get into fights with everyone of you from time to time, just some more then others...." Please clarify this point - in what way are we 'just like' you? Your statement seems to imply that the only manner in which 'we' are different from you is that 'we' seem to 'suck up to people'. What do you mean by that? You seem to suggest that we are 'going out of our way' to ingratiate ourselves to others - but I have not yet seen an example of this supposed behaviour on this post. ntfx's actions certainly don't cons!@#$%^&*ute 'sucking up to people', and nor, as I can see, are any of the comments made by staffers here. If, by the above phrase you mean that staffers always take ntfx's side in arguments like these, then you are again mistaken - there is a difference between 'sucking up' and stating an opinion derived from logical inferences of the situation. Furthermore, DaKillaRoach contradicts ntfx's views - how, then, can you claim that this undeclared 'we' are 'just like' you? QUOTE: "-*BAD WORD*- half the zone be gone if it were up to you." This line of argument seems to be undermined by your previous threads in which you claimed to somehow be able to make half the zone disappear. QUOTE: "But all in all, this is a good thing that happened to me, kinda snapped me out of my re-*BAD WORD*-ed ways that I was getting back into. I needed something to get me away from this game. So thanks guys" You seem to be holding onto some notion that you are in some way superior because of your non-commitance into the game. It seems strange, then, that you are arguing at all - never mind the fact that you were the one who started this thread in the first place. Your argument here is also undermined by that fact that you were (and, in fact, are) still pointlessly insulting several members of staff - if you have better things to do, then why waste time here?

Ouch. That's a little harsh.