Dr Brain Posted June 6, 2008 Report Posted June 6, 2008 I've yet to see someone state the purpose of this forum beyond "asking questions". I asked ace what kinds of questions and his reply was "Iunno". The person most heavily advertising this forum don't even know what it'll be used for. To further compound the failure of this "forum", the sysop portion is closed to public viewing. I believe the idea behind it was to increase communication (though what kind of communication has still to be addressed). Well, guess what, having it private doesn't help. The qualifications for being a ssc sysop are virtually non-existent, so why not just let guests read it? On top of that, the admins have taken it upon themselves to decide which sysops can and cannot have access. They've denied access to current sysops, and given access to people that don't technically qualify.
CRe Posted June 6, 2008 Report Posted June 6, 2008 I've yet to see someone state the purpose of this forum beyond "asking questions". I asked ace what kinds of questions and his reply was "Iunno". The person most heavily advertising this forum don't even know what it'll be used for. Witnessed it. On top of that, the admins have taken it upon themselves to decide which sysops can and cannot have access. They've denied access to current sysops, and given access to people that don't technically qualify. Yes, how does riistar qualify? TWDev leader doesn't really make sense.
Aceflyer Posted June 6, 2008 Author Report Posted June 6, 2008 On top of that, the admins have taken it upon themselves to decide which sysops can and cannot have access. They've denied access to current sysops, and given access to people that don't technically qualify. This is basically a private board for SSC members, SSC server admins, SSC zone admins, and SSC zone BanG admins to use to discuss various issues. ... Hopefully this will help maximize cross-SSC discussion and collaboration. Here are the general guidelines for what 'qualifications' enable someone to automatically gain access to this board: > Current SysOp of a Public SSC Zone> Current Member of the SubSpace Council> Level 1+ SSC BanG Operator> Current SSC Server Host> Past Public SSC Zone SysOp, SubSpace Council Member, Level 1+ SSC BanG Operator, or SSC Server Host who has made important contributions to the game and who continues to play an important role in the game People who meet any of the above criteria and do not have a bad record (e.g. a SSC netban for cheating or hacking) will automatically qualify for access to the board if they register. People who meet any of the above criteria but do have a bad record will be considered on a case-by-case basis by the SSC Forum Admins. People who are generally accepted as "core" members of the Continuum community but do not have one or more of the 'qualifications' listed above will be considered on a case-by-case basis by the SSC Forum Admins. People with access to this board who later obtain a bad record will have their access re-considered on a case-by-case basis by the SSC Forum Admins. Explain to us how the above is unreasonable in any way. If we see evidence for how it is unreasonable we are open to amending it.
Cancer+ Posted June 6, 2008 Report Posted June 6, 2008 This portion of the forum is irrelevant to most of the community. The portion that is relevant is the public portion of the forum, which is for regular players to ask the SSC members and other SysOps questions and for other general discussion about the SSC. Why can't they do that in the SSC subforum of these forums? Isn't that what they are for? It's a stupid idea and you should abolish it.
BlueGoku Posted June 6, 2008 Report Posted June 6, 2008 The original intention was to get it set up here, but that didn't pan out. Regardless, it's probably better to have it up on sscouncil.com for reasons already posted. Furthermore, it's not in compe!@#$%^&*ion with ssforum in any way, the only public part of the forum is for SSC related questions. Don't have any? Then you don't need to visit the forum. The forum came about to supplement the already existing sysop chat, and even though it's only been up for a couple of days, it's already proven to be quite useful. As well, we're not deciding who should and shouldn't have access, but as a rule of thumb if you're banned from SSC, you're most likely not going to get access to it. It has the potential to house sensitive information and considering you've already violated SSC rules, it doesn't really matter much that one zone decided to banfree you and give you sysop. I can tell you right now that if someone who is netbanned decides to start his own zone and asks for SSC, he's not going to get it. Why should it be different just because the zone is ALREADY on SSC?
Dr Brain Posted June 6, 2008 Report Posted June 6, 2008 As well, we're not deciding who should and shouldn't have access Are you deciding on a case by case basis or not?
BlueGoku Posted June 7, 2008 Report Posted June 7, 2008 I think Aceflyer has already posted what the guidelines to getting access are. It's an operators forum, so like he posted, if you fall under those categories you are automatically given access. The case by case basis is for people who do NOT qualify. Personally the only time I see this coming into effect is when you have a sysop that happens to be netbanned from SSC, like CRE's case. Generally speaking, if you're a sysop in an SSC zone and NOT a cheater, you're going to be given access.
X`terrania Posted June 7, 2008 Report Posted June 7, 2008 I don't like Ace, and I really wish he'd respond to Cerium's posts more. Maybe he's just afraid that Cerium is speaking truth.. I vote Cerium represents SSC.
Dr Brain Posted June 7, 2008 Report Posted June 7, 2008 Well, ace has specifically said that my sysops can't get access since they're not listed in game. I call that deciding.
Aceflyer Posted June 7, 2008 Author Report Posted June 7, 2008 Well, ace has specifically said that my sysops can't get access since they're not listed in game. I call that deciding. D1st0rt is the only official HS sysop, and he definitely qualifies for access. Arnk Dylie is an official HZ sysop and already has access anyway. Cerium has sysop access in HS but is not actually !@#$%^&*led an HS sysop, so he doesn't automatically qualify. People can have sysop access in a zone but not actually be !@#$%^&*led a zone sysop (heck, I've had a Moderator/Developer in SWE in the past who had sysop access in the zone for bot development purposes); these people don't automatically qualify as far as I'm concerned. If you clarify that Cerium is actually !@#$%^&*led an HS sysop, he would then automatically qualify for access.
Dr Brain Posted June 7, 2008 Report Posted June 7, 2008 All I'm saying is that you guys are deciding things left and right. Make up your mind, or stop claiming to be unbiased. What's your definition of a sysop? I guarantee you've let people in that don't fit whatever definition you come up with.
ThunderJam Posted June 7, 2008 Report Posted June 7, 2008 The private portion of the forum is for SSC members, SSC server admins, SSC zone admins (typically zone sysops/owners), and SSC zone BanG admins to use to discuss various issues. It is meant to help facilitate cross-SSC discussion and collaboration, and it is not just for SSC members. This portion of the forum is irrelevant to most of the community. The portion that is relevant is the public portion of the forum, which is for regular players to ask the SSC members and other SysOps questions and for other general discussion about the SSC.From having been around and staffed several ssc zones, everything you say that these people will be discussing seems irrelevant to me. 1) unless you are a sysop at a bigname ssc zone, you usually are treated well by the rest the crew2) most zone sysops (and plenty of owners) dont care too much what is going on outside their zone. I dont understand what issues and collaboration they are going to be so involved with that they need their own forum. What is intersting to me, is how it wasnt a council member to post this. As far as I am aware, the only council member to post here is blugoku. That give any idea of how high of a priority the council considers this forum? Seems like ace is a bit, uhm.. eager, to promote this to get his name out there :/
Aceflyer Posted June 7, 2008 Author Report Posted June 7, 2008 All I'm saying is that you guys are deciding things left and right. Make up your mind, or stop claiming to be unbiased. What's your definition of a sysop? I guarantee you've let people in that don't fit whatever definition you come up with. We do the best we can to be as consistent and fair as possible. I am aware the general guidelines are not loophole-proof, but the guidelines aren't meant to hold up in a real life court of law either; they are just there to serve as general guidelines to help ensure fairness.
Aceflyer Posted June 7, 2008 Author Report Posted June 7, 2008 (edited) From having been around and staffed several ssc zones, everything you say that these people will be discussing seems irrelevant to me. I agree; since you aren't a zone/server admin, the discussions in the private board wouldn't be particularly relevant to you. 1) unless you are a sysop at a bigname ssc zone, you usually are treated well by the rest the crew2) most zone sysops (and plenty of owners) dont care too much what is going on outside their zone. I dont understand what issues and collaboration they are going to be so involved with that they need their own forum. The forum came about to supplement the already existing sysop chat, and even though it's only been up for a couple of days, it's already proven to be quite useful. What is intersting to me, is how it wasnt a council member to post this. As far as I am aware, the only council member to post here is blugoku. That give any idea of how high of a priority the council considers this forum? Seems like ace is a bit, uhm.. eager, to promote this to get his name out there :/ Currently 10 (out of 19 total) Council members are registered on that forum, and it has been online only 48 hours or so. That seems pretty promising to me. Edited June 7, 2008 by Aceflyer
»Ceiu Posted June 7, 2008 Report Posted June 7, 2008 @Blue:What sysop chat? Do you honestly have players visit it to ask you guys questions, or is it largely just a hangout for people who want to join a clique? Well, ace has specifically said that my sysops can't get access since they're not listed in game. I call that deciding. D1st0rt is the only official HS sysop, and he definitely qualifies for access. Arnk Dylie is an official HZ sysop and already has access anyway. Cerium has sysop access in HS but is not actually !@#$%^&*led an HS sysop, so he doesn't automatically qualify. People can have sysop access in a zone but not actually be !@#$%^&*led a zone sysop (heck, I've had a Moderator/Developer in SWE in the past who had sysop access in the zone for bot development purposes); these people don't automatically qualify as far as I'm concerned. If you clarify that Cerium is actually !@#$%^&*led an HS sysop, he would then automatically qualify for access.I need to start by saying I don't give a !@#$%^&* about any access, nor do I want it. I am simply using myself as an example. What does it matter how "official" my !@#$%^&*le is? What about people who are sysops in subarenas? Are they any more or less trusted/!@#$%^&*ociated with their zone than I am? Wouldn't that kind of !@#$%^&* over zones like Premier and DZA who reside entirely as a subarenas in another zone? Why do you (guys) feel it's necessary to require some arbitrary labels before they can join your elite group? Isn't that kind of counter-intuitive to the whole collaboration thing? Before you can respond with some nonsense about how this helps balance zone representation in your little gated community or something:-What's to stop someone from setting up some no-name zone for the sake of getting access?-How do you prevent an owner/sysop from adding new sysops for the sole purpose of them having access?-How do you define sysop on ASSS, where the term only exists for legacy purposes?-Exactly what is the point of this gated community, again? Tch.
Aceflyer Posted June 7, 2008 Author Report Posted June 7, 2008 -What's to stop someone from setting up some no-name zone for the sake of getting access?-How do you prevent an owner/sysop from adding new sysops for the sole purpose of them having access?-How do you define sysop on ASSS, where the term only exists for legacy purposes?-Exactly what is the point of this gated community, again? 1) There are certain standards that must be met for someone to set up a SSC zone.2) We can't prevent that. If it is really abused though (e.g. a SSC zone adding tens of sysops) I imagine we will deal with it if it happens.3) As people who are !@#$%^&*led as sysop. We are going by !@#$%^&*le and not amount of access. Even in Subgame, there are people who have sysop access but who are not !@#$%^&*led as sysop.4) The answer has already been given many many times in this thread.
BlueGoku Posted June 7, 2008 Report Posted June 7, 2008 We're not trying to create a gated or elitist community. The forum was set up as a tool that every SSC zone would be able to use to corroborate on certain issues. For example, we can post banG lists there for cross-checking purposes. The public forum can be used, for example, by someone like Resol to state his case about why his zone should be given SSC access. He'd be able to communicate directly with council members. In theory this would be much more productive than me just forwarding his request in the mailing list. I 100% fail to see why people are getting all up in arms about a tool that was created to HELP SSC zones out. Though in hindsight this topic probably shouldn't have been made, as we were doing just fine privately letting sysops know about it.
»Ceiu Posted June 7, 2008 Report Posted June 7, 2008 I 100% fail to see why people are getting all up in arms about a tool that was created to HELP SSC zones out. Though in hindsight this topic probably shouldn't have been made, as we were doing just fine privately letting sysops know about it. Agreed. The public doesn't need to know about such a thing and knowing that they are intentionally being left out or "chosen" for what are largely arbitrary reasons is just going to piss them off. And the public forum is largely a waste since you guys could just as easily join this existing community for public matters. Making people register on some special forums to talk to you guys is very much creating a gated community (not to mention, tedious). I don't think anyone's getting all up in arms, really. It's just a silly idea to split things up unnecessarily. Further, lots of people who's read this topic see it as kind of a power-flexing move on Ace's part.
Aceflyer Posted June 7, 2008 Author Report Posted June 7, 2008 (edited) We're not trying to create a gated or elitist community. The forum was set up as a tool that every SSC zone would be able to use to corroborate on certain issues. For example, we can post banG lists there for cross-checking purposes. The public forum can be used, for example, by someone like Resol to state his case about why his zone should be given SSC access. He'd be able to communicate directly with council members. In theory this would be much more productive than me just forwarding his request in the mailing list. I 100% fail to see why people are getting all up in arms about a tool that was created to HELP SSC zones out. Though in hindsight this topic probably shouldn't have been made, as we were doing just fine privately letting sysops know about it. In hindsight, I agree, and can only say I regret making this topic. My only purpose in making this topic originally was to help spread awareness of the public forum so people could know about it and use it as a resource when necessary. Edited June 7, 2008 by Aceflyer
rootbear75 Posted June 7, 2008 Report Posted June 7, 2008 It's a stupid idea and you should abolish it.
BlueGoku Posted June 7, 2008 Report Posted June 7, 2008 People aren't being left out because we want to create a clique or whatever, but because sensitive information is being shared and discussed there. The public forum was set up so that non-staffers can still take part by asking questions or making comments, and should serve as a pretty good place to post SSC access requests, for example. To gain access to the private forum you need to be a sysop though, which I don't think is very unreasonable considering the entire point behind this forum was a place where all the zone sysops can get together and discuss issues, as opposed to just Council members. I don't think Ace is trying to show off or anything, I just think he's taken a defensive position which is making him sound like it. As well, I don't look at it as a split considering the SSC forum has an entirely different purpose than SSForum. I still read SSForum, I don't see why anyone else that's on the SSC forum (that read ssforum before) wouldn't.
Aceflyer Posted June 7, 2008 Author Report Posted June 7, 2008 People aren't being left out because we want to create a clique or whatever, but because sensitive information is being shared and discussed there. The public forum was set up so that non-staffers can still take part by asking questions or making comments, and should serve as a pretty good place to post SSC access requests, for example. To gain access to the private forum you need to be a sysop though, which I don't think is very unreasonable considering the entire point behind this forum was a place where all the zone sysops can get together and discuss issues, as opposed to just Council members. I don't think Ace is trying to show off or anything, I just think he's taken a defensive position which is making him sound like it. As well, I don't look at it as a split considering the SSC forum has an entirely different purpose than SSForum. I still read SSForum, I don't see why anyone else that's on the SSC forum (that read ssforum before) wouldn't. I think that sums everything up pretty well, thanks Blue. I apologize if I was too defensive or if I seemed that I was trying to show off... it wasn't my intention, and I will exercise more caution in my posts in the future.
jacob hunter! Posted June 7, 2008 Report Posted June 7, 2008 (edited) polix do you play gow or halo3? ohh and would you consider yourself MLG material. Edited June 7, 2008 by attraction
Recommended Posts