SubSpace Operators Forum

[X`terrania]

Hi. If I get a zone on SSC could I have accesss???

[Steigerwald]

Haha, because of my comment about the statistics now you must register to even view the forum, if you dont register you only get to see a blank login page. I can't even see the statistics I had seen before. Stop being ASSS, you close the community more with the forum regardless of the forums intention whether good or bad. Open the community up, aren't you all the same people or some who are begging for open source of the game, and yet you hide behind closed doors. The game isn't really community driven anymore, we just play in YOUR zones and on YOUR biller.

[X`terrania]

Yup.

 

Some people are also becoming even more power hungry than before, it's insane, and this closed forum only serves to prove us right. Typical though, little kiss-!@#$%^&* Aceflyer has to be the first one to post about it, and then be a complete jerk. Typical.

[»doc flabby]

I can't really think there is much that sysops need to say to each other that HAS to be secret.

 

I can however see the argument for being able to have debates away from the public eye, as it allows more freedom of expression of ideas.

 

Maybe a good compromise would be after 14 days since the last post, a thread becomes locked and is made public...

That way we can see whats going on.

Edited June 9, 2008 by doc flabby

[Samapico]

But then again, most of the things discussed will not even be of public interest... imo the reason to have it private is the same reason why we have a private forum of admins right here in this forum, and the same reason (almost) every zone has a private staff forum...

 

One of these reasons is just because if you want to talk about a player in particular (his actions, etc.), you can do so without having to deal with that player seeing it and whining, or other people whining about it or whatever.

[Sketter]

it has been a while since some good drama poped up.

 

there is some good points on both sides.

 

(im on my wii and typing with remote takes to long so keeping short)

 

having access i can say there isn't really anything right now to hide...the only thing they got is a collection of net & zone bans...but any lvl bang can view a net ban from any zone, as for zone wide...it would only serve as cross refence....and that is useful in hiring.

 

in my eyes, the nature of the forums is to create "communication", between zones with people who can have an impact in way or another. with that said, it is then understandable to allow vips with the intent of community building for people of great impact.

(as well meet the criteria of access provided by the guidelines the administrator)

 

i do feel the is progress already.

since reviewing the forum policy, i an not barred to speak of it's content. provided it is not compromising ssc. (at least not at the time of this post)

 

to be brief, two topics of of worthy is the ssc wide event onced talked about by Blue, can now be talked about even more with better focus, since the bringing of everyone together (via forums) , and talks of a ssc net wide alias system on all servers.

 

now, do i think the way restriction is being done right?

no..not really. some improvements can be done.

 

i believe the forum should be cut into 3 sections.

1) general section for the general pop can access.

 

2) community builders (sysops, devs, hosts, vips) forums, that the general may "view" but can not post. this involves both the vips, and the general pop to view what we are doing for the benift of the game. this then gives anyone outside the vip forums to then view, and then if they feel they can contribute, post in the general forums. as well as adopt ideas that could be posted on the general forums.

 

3) security/privacy forums where section two of the rules ( exploits, glitch, ect - info only part of it), collection of the bans ect, or anything the administrator my find deemed enough not for the public eye, but for the vips to know.

 

remember the idea should be effective community building.

We don't, and shouldn't have anything to hide, and be productive.

I also believe the !@#$%^&*le of the forums should be changed. since it is not only for sysops of zone owners, thus i guess that would eliminate the issue of "well I'm a sysop"

 

Sketter

Thank you for your time.

Edited June 9, 2008 by Sketter

[Aceflyer]

1) general section for the general pop can access.

 

We already have this. It's called the "General Discussion" board.

 

2) community builders (sysops, devs, hosts, vips) forums, that the general may "view" but can not post. this involves both the vips, and the general pop to view what we are doing for the benift of the game. this then gives anyone outside the vip forums to then view, and then if the feel they can contribute, post in the general forums. as well as adopt ideas that could be posted on the general forums.

 

I do not think most devs need access. Furthermore there are already (publicly viewable) dev discussion boards at SSForum.net; there is no need to attempt to "reinvent the wheel" at SSC forum.

 

3) security/privacy forums where section two of the rules ( exploits, glitch, ect - info only part of it), collection of the bans ect, or anything the administrator my find deemed enough not for the public eye, but for the vips to know.

 

The main sysop discussion board may quite easily contain sensitive information not necessarily suitable for public viewing. It seems like a lot of (unnecessary) work to separate it into a "publicly viewable" sysop discussion board and a "private" sysop discussion board.

 

remember the idea should be effective community building.

We don't, and shouldn't have anything to hide, and be productive.

I also believe the !@#$%^&*le of the forums should be changed. since it is not only for sysops of zone owners, thus i guess that would eliminate the issue of "well I'm a sysop"

 

Sketter

Thank you for your time.

 

We have about as much to hide as most zones and SSForum.net do. I do not think there is anything wrong with a private staff discussion board. However, you made a good point about the forum's name; forum name is changed to simply "SSC Forum" for now.

[ThunderJam]

I do not think most devs need access. Furthermore there are already (publicly viewable) dev discussion boards at SSForum.net; there is no need to attempt to "reinvent the wheel" at SSC forum.

Im curious as to where you draw the line from "dont think most devs need access" to w/e u said before which was somehting like besides sysops and zone owners, and well known influential ppl can get on the forum too.

 

As a reference point, ill ask you point blank, would i get in? (I havnt bothered to register on it to find out)

[Chambahs]

Lets make sfn private threads/posts viewable then. Im sure there is nothing to hide, like alot of people are saying.

[Sketter]

From my understanding, you have already approved some people who do not sit under as a sysop, host, SSC member. My next suggestion was to support you in your choices by then designating them under "dev" vip codres and such. But i see you have given them the name of GAME VIP.

Since your main 4 points of criteria to join, do not permit them. (I'm sure that will change after this post)

 

Correct, there is a section on the ssforums. And if the current forums you admin SSC Forums, was used under ssforums, (which is not because of political reasons) then it wouldn't be then an issue. But now you have created a "focus point" for the VIP's, there for dev should be included. And again, as for dev, i'm talking about the small few that don't hold the general aspects of a sysop, that you have now called GAME VIP.

 

"It seems like a lot of (unnecessary) work to separate it into a "publicly viewable" sysop discussion board and a "private" sysop discussion board."

 

I'm sorry, I do not mean to be rude, but i can not categorise that to anything other then lazy.

 

 

 

Those are not my forums, and that is fine, you can do what you see best. But you have shot down my ideas, before even you had a chance to really think about it, in point form, looking for a disagreement in logic. (poorly done)

I do not feel that our general conversations should be kept private. An outsider might have productive criticism.

(Anything that is, then have it posted where it should be)

Do you honestly see harm in our two main discussions being viewed by others? (The ones i posted in my previous post) If so how?

 

You replied too quickly to even consult for those you work for.

I'm feeling a bit of close minded on your part.

 

You want to be a cut off the group from the rest of everyone else, with no communication, your on the right track...what i'm offering is the idea, something new, to involved more then an picked elite group, and even still, it doesn't limit as much as you think.

(isn't SSC criticized for that enough now? )

 

 

Sketter

Take a moment

 

Lets make sfn private threads/posts viewable then. Im sure there is nothing to hide, like alot of people are saying.

 

You couldn't be any more far off from what is being said, and suggested.

Edited June 9, 2008 by Sketter

[LostAndNotFound]

I have nothing to add to the conversation. I simply like to make a post and sign it every time I see Sketter make a post and put his alias at the bottom.

 

Regards,

Brandon

 

(Insert some random nonsense here)

[X`terrania]

1) general section for the general pop can access.

 

We already have this. It's called the "General Discussion" board.

 

3) security/privacy forums where section two of the rules ( exploits, glitch, ect - info only part of it), collection of the bans ect, or anything the administrator my find deemed enough not for the public eye, but for the vips to know.

 

The main sysop discussion board may quite easily contain sensitive information not necessarily suitable for public viewing. It seems like a lot of (unnecessary) work to separate it into a "publicly viewable" sysop discussion board and a "private" sysop discussion board.

 

LOL

[Aceflyer]

Lets make sfn private threads/posts viewable then. Im sure there is nothing to hide, like alot of people are saying.

 

Agreed Chambahs.

 

As a reference point, ill ask you point blank, would i get in? (I havnt bothered to register on it to find out)

 

Probably not, I'd think, although that is not set in stone.

[Aceflyer]

From my understanding, you have already approved some people who do not sit under as a sysop, host, SSC member. My next suggestion was to support you in your choices by then designating them under "dev" vip codres and such. But i see you have given them the name of GAME VIP.

Since your main 4 points of criteria to join, do not permit them. (I'm sure that will change after this post)

 

Correct, there is a section on the ssforums. And if the current forums you admin SSC Forums, was used under ssforums, (which is not because of political reasons) then it wouldn't be then an issue. But now you have created a "focus point" for the VIP's, there for dev should be included. And again, as for dev, i'm talking about the small few that don't hold the general aspects of a sysop, that you have now called GAME VIP.

 

I'm not sure I get what you want. Do you want the current GAME VIPs to be denied access? We did discuss this, but agreed to simply put the kibosh on further GAME VIPs and allow the current ones to stay.

 

"It seems like a lot of (unnecessary) work to separate it into a "publicly viewable" sysop discussion board and a "private" sysop discussion board."

 

I'm sorry, I do not mean to be rude, but i can not categorise that to anything other then lazy.

 

It is not creating the board that is a problem. The problem is for the forum members to have to keep deciding which board to post in, and whether a post in the private board could actually go in the public board, or whether a post in the public board should actually go in the private board.

[Dr Brain]

I've been hammering aceflyer in game over this for several days.

 

I finally got the main point of this board out of him: zone staffing issues and exploits. Lets face it people, devs know way more about the technical details of exploits and bugs than "VIPs" ever will.

 

Until developers are let into the forum, or VIPs are taken out, HS will not be a part of it (not that anyone but ace cares). I also will not contribute further to this thread.

[Steigerwald]

Still, why separate the community even more. Community driven game my !@#$%^&*. And at least let us hear from other people on the SSC (other then aceflyer) with valid reasons why to separate the community and limit access. You want people to stay and play, you should take their ideas and let them have player input. Maybe population would rise if people feel they are helping once again. Forget the political reasons, open the forums for people to help.

 

HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE: Maybe some 30 year old programmer gets bored at work, plays the game for the first time in a while, then wants to help , only to come here and see stupid !@#$%^&* talk. Then again, it isn't worth his time if he has to deal with some of the people on this forum. So maybe the SSC forum could actually work out as a mature forum. Hmmm.

[X`terrania]

Brain, I don't even think Ace knows what it's for.

[Sketter]

No. perhaps the wording might be off, since i said dev.

 

 

2) community builders (Server Admin, Zone Admin, SSC Member, SSC Billing Op, Game VIP) forums, that the general may "view" but can not post.

This involves the general public to view what we are doing for the benefit of the game. this then gives anyone outside the "elite group" (can't think of a word for "us" right now, and in us i mean "Server Admin, Zone Admin, SSC Member, SSC Billing Op, Game VIP") forums to then view, and then if they feel they can contribute, post in the general forums. as well as adopt ideas that could be posted on the general forums.

 

On your second part - Then you have your members understand the difference of harmful information vs productive info and understanding the rules.

If they can not, and you have doubt, then you already have members you have issues with.

 

Sketter

[»Lynx]

As a reference point, ill ask you point blank, would i get in? (I havnt bothered to register on it to find out)

 

Probably not, I'd think, although that is not set in stone.

 

^^ Unprofessional. I'll leave it at that. :/

 

----

 

What is said on the forums is administrative to SSC its self, and ergo, doesn't require the typical spam posts which you'd receive from public forums. The only talk which I could possibly see going public, are some small development plans. These development plans obviously require full SSC !@#$%^&*istance, and are therefore on the SSC forums. If these plans do actually get past planning, I'm sure that they will be made at least partially public. I doubt that there will be much need for !@#$%^&*istance, however, there may be some polling required to optimise how well the projects work if they're going to be single version projects however, (I'd hope) that all new projects will be open source, or at least module based so further improved versions can be created.

 

----

 

Game VIPs:

 

I see no reason why Game VIPs (or developers) can't view at least the development threads on the forums, they usually have more experience in both staffing, and developing than SysOps anyway, and I'd bet they have a much better idea of what the public actually wants and needs. The only sensitive information is the banG lists, which can easily be made private to VIPs.

 

There's more that I'd like to say, but I simply can't be bothered to feed the trolls.

 

Cheers,

 

-Lynx

 

Edit: Further support for nitpickers.

Edited June 9, 2008 by Lynx

[Testtube]

I think this has been poorly thought out. You can't say player's X Y Z gets in and then add someone that doesn't fit that description. As a council member and a zone sysop i am a bit shocked at this poor organization of this forum. I think this needs to be discussed in more depth. I am sure good intentions were involved however the council already has a negative view by the community. This should have been thought out better as to who gets access and who doesn't. It seems the fundamental reason to have the board has not really been established.

[Animate Dreams]

This sounds like another attempt at power-centralization. These forums are probably the only thing in SubSpace history that have ever shown any degree of integrity. Why would you want to move away from it?

 

SubSpace is a decentralized network with a centralized community, and it's that way by necessity.

[BlueGoku]

Like I said on the last page, I'll put up a summary of non-sensitive information every once in a while in the general forum. I think this is a good compromise.

 

You guys are right about the guests not being able to view the forum issue though, I initially set it so guests needed to register because it works well for the HZ forum, but for something like the SSC forum I suppose that's a bit of overkill since there's a larger amount of possible readers. I'll change that back to allow guest viewing.

 

Regardless, -every- forum has a private forum for the administrators/staff/sysops to post in. This is no different. The only real difference between this and your zone's staff forum is it's not just one zone's staff, but EVERY SSC zone.

 

As well, here it is once more, the entire reason behind the board since some people are still unsure:

 

The SSC forum was created so that sysops all across Continuum can better communicate with eachother and with the SSC. At one point there was a highly useful sysop chat that SSC ops used (it could still be there, I have no chat room tho =p) and this is just a better version of that. Information can be shared in complete trust across all SSC zones between all SSC zone operators.

 

This forum is NOT competing with SSForum. If you want to discuss Continuum, this is the place.

[Aceflyer]

Like I said on the last page, I'll put up a summary of non-sensitive information every once in a while in the general forum. I think this is a good compromise.

 

Agreed, I think that should do the trick.

 

You guys are right about the guests not being able to view the forum issue though, I initially set it so guests needed to register because it works well for the HZ forum, but for something like the SSC forum I suppose that's a bit of overkill since there's a larger amount of possible readers. I'll change that back to allow guest viewing.

 

Sounds good. (I had changed it a few days ago to allow guest viewing as per Dr Brain's recommendation, but unfortunately forgot to inform you about that. If I had, you probably wouldn't have changed it back this morning and this whole thing would have been avoided; again, my apologies for my oversight in forgetting to inform you. )

Edited June 9, 2008 by Aceflyer

[Aceflyer]

I think this has been poorly thought out. You can't say player's X Y Z gets in and then add someone that doesn't fit that description. As a council member and a zone sysop i am a bit shocked at this poor organization of this forum. I think this needs to be discussed in more depth. I am sure good intentions were involved however the council already has a negative view by the community. This should have been thought out better as to who gets access and who doesn't. It seems the fundamental reason to have the board has not really been established.

 

May I ask you to elaborate on the "poor organization" of the SSC forum?

 

Also, I disagree that the Council has a negative view by the community. The opinion of a few known flamers who post prolifically at SSF does not indicate the opinion of the entire community.

[Animate Dreams]

Also, I disagree that the Council has a negative view by the community. The opinion of a few known flamers who post prolifically at SSF does not indicate the opinion of the entire community.

 

Then you're pretty out of touch with the SubSpace community. I've never even heard a council member speak positively of the council. Furthermore, the higher up people are, the less they seem to think of it. The closest I've ever come to hearing a positive opinion is hearing people call it a "necessary evil". I don't know about you, but "evil" is definitely a negative view in my book.

 

Also, "prolifically"? Are you seriously complimenting the flamers?

Edited June 9, 2008 by Animate Dreams