Jump to content

Creation of the GAME MODERATOR OFFICE  

72 members have voted

  1. 1. Creation of the GAME MODERATOR OFFICE

    • Yes
      44
    • No
      28


Recommended Posts

The problem is not in officers losing their powers, it is in the fact that one officer position will gain too much power. This one officer can just completely ruin gameplay on the server if he feels the need to(while this is unlikely to happen, it is still a possibility), and it will take two weeks to remove him for this(and as we know, it is damn near impossible to remove people from their positions in UO).

This is also the de facto situation, if an officer wants to ruin the primary he can turn it off.

Please substantiate why it's relevant.

Share this post


Link to post

With a radically increased  input userbase, yes. I could see much more benefit from a rating than 80 comments, many of which might be out of date. A decaying weight to each rating would mean that the person being reviewed could improve and the newer reviews would burn out the older reviews. 

 

I can agree with the rest of your post, but you must also admit that there is much room for improvement with no expressed leader.

I can't argue there's not room for improvement, I just don't agree that this is the method to go at it with. I see adversarial natures at play, rather than cooperative ones, as being the issue at hand. This would do little to nothing to address those, as it's a problem underlying all the systems, not a problem with the systems themselves.

 

I was attempting to substatiate my claim that if noone acts as front runners, nothing happens. The GMs are a large percentage of users however and I would perceive it as MMO being tool makers and GMs being the end user.

Man, that was a really late edit. Yeah, we see things differently. Edited by TinfoilHate

Share this post


Link to post

Voted yes. The office of GMO would mean a better run and organised cadre of GMs, rather than the current system where every officer can chip in, regardless of their expertise, awareness of issues affecting gameplay and suitability to control GMs or lack thereof.

 

Having an actual office would also mean more evenly applied punishments, along with better administration in that regard.

 

As for checks and balances, anyone in this position of GMO would find themselves and their actions under intense scrutiny, and if someone was seen to be over stepping their boundaries or somehow abusing the system, then I believe they would be voted out quickly.  Other officers have been voted out before when the community has felt that they were not performing well enough in their positions, and in this case, with this officer role having such a direct affect on people's gameplay, I feel that the community would be quick to act against those they feel are behaving inappropriately in this position.

Share this post


Link to post

why is everyone talking about this "one person" this is just another officer position there can be multiple officers in this position, so all of the "this makes it a dictatorship" etc , is very subjective to the situation I don't think this would office would ever really be a one man office, since it's appealing for GM's to move up and for regulars, as well as this, this seems to allow for a much more cohesive scheme of administration for the way GM's run the server.      

Share this post


Link to post

Voted no.

 

Let's add perspective and personal experience to help fill in the picture here so this doesn't proceed entirely on false pretenses, as it is crafted now.

 

While all of the officious talk makes it sound like this is all because of SOP's, I honestly believe this is just more of the same old trend, "UO would be what we want it to be if only the officers and others would abandon everything they've worked to build, and get out of our way." You can't get rid of all the officers, so you want a pet officer. If this all sounds too low-brow and hard-boiled, that's because I see some regulars and members try put on an act of being nice and reasonable, whereas their actions and purposes are trashy and genuinely bad for the community.

 

This is totally normal for people to do, though normality doesn't make it any better. People will put on a guise of professionalism and obey social protocols while also doing underhanded, self-serving shit to hijack or screw up other peoples' efforts, even entire organizations and businesses. That's one of the major problems in UO.

 

Guess what - I and many others remember when some people here didn't try to play nice and reasonable. There used to be real rudeness toward basically everything UO was about and the people who put in their free time to make it all happen - but only measured rudeness from the people smart enough to not push it too far, too suddenly. That's a huge part of why things are the way they are here.

 

Some of the most important, well-intentioned people here got seriously burned, and they are constantly blamed for by people who have no understanding of why things are the way they are. Clearing up some of these major underlying issues would involve confrontation and upset. Let's just say that those of you with "Hero of the People" syndrome aren't right just because you dupe as many unwitting people as you can to see things your way by feeding them false pretense.

 

It's all great reason to not take this poll at face value or trust the thinking behind it. No, I do not think this poll is actually about fixing problems by having a new officer. I think it's about trying to get a new officer who can act against the current officers, or sideline them, or at least try and block them and what they do.

 

Didn't this all come about this time because of talk about vague SOP's? Why try to vote in a new officer position to clarify the SOP's about officers delegating power? Did you forget what you were discussing before and put up the wrong poll? Maybe all of that talk was just to get people rallied with the pitchforks and torches, right?

 

I think this poll is up because some of you hope you will get an officer sympathetic to your own ideas, and fuck everyone else and all the work they put into the community you now enjoy. You want an officer to have total control over GM's, and my guess is you want that officer to handle things your way so you can finally start to warp UO to your own ideas with no regard for those whose work you benefit from.

 

Obviously, I am not referring to everyone who supports this poll passing. People like Rambo and Scope mean well. Others among you, though, I see as adversarial to the intent of the community and those who made it, and if you could just marginalize them and anyone else who won't bend, you could have servers and population without having to do any of the work yourself.

 

Yes, people actually think that way, and yes, they do it while denying it as hard as they can.

Share this post


Link to post

This is also the de facto situation, if an officer wants to ruin the primary he can turn it off.

Please substantiate why it's relevant.

Don't play naive. That GMO can put on a smiling face and act nice and professional, all while acting to marginalize certain people and certain ideas integral to UO.

Share this post


Link to post

I would vote no. Game moderation is an extremely important part of keeping a positive flow of gameplay on the server. I fail to see where GM's need such "supervision" and I see this quickly becoming redundant.

Share this post


Link to post

This proposal was written in collaboration with a large group of Regulars. This is a much needed "first step" in the restructuring that United Operation needs. 

 

It was created based on 2 key aspects:

 

1. There is a clear conflict between the Charter and SOPs.

The powers granted to Game Server Officers are being extended to other Officers despite the fact that they were NOT originally voted in to fulfill such tasks.

- Officers are claiming that GMs are delegates of  ALL OFFICERS whilst the GSO claiming that GMs are delegates OF THEIR OWN.

- These become grounds for Officers to exceed their original tasks by being granted privileges through SOPs.

 

2. There is a great opportunity for restructuring.

- All offices are picking up the tab because there isn't any structuring.

- Instead of patching the system with SOPs that contradict the Charter, it would be better to amend the Charter.

- We must consolidate efforts in order to ensure maximum efficiency within the scope of work of a GM.

 

This proposal was very popular during its first run, and almost a year later, it is being brought back under a revised version based not only on the original critiques, but also based on the current status of the community. It has been a painstaking process to work with several Regulars and Officers to ensure that most people would be satisfied  with the proposal. It is evident that there will be a few people advocating for maintaining the status quo, and if you might ask, these are the same people that halt the development of any community due to the fact that they act in an act of selfishness. I say we get over our differences and do something together for the greater good of the community. 

 

Here are the 10 facts about this proposal:

 

1. Change is healthy and it allows the community to adapt and improve.

 

2. This proposal is for the community and every Regular is welcome to participate and apply for.

 

3. Part of the reason people don't trust each other is because Officers are operating over a much higher scope than originally intended. 

 

4. This Officer position will be lead by Regulars voted by other Regulars through formal proceedings to perform specific tasks outlined on the Charter. It will restore GM as delegates under one specific Office and it will provide uniformity.

 

5. Regulars applying for this position will be voted in by other Regulars. That's how the community works. If you don't like someone applying for this position, just vote no. 

 

6. This new office would operate fully within the existing Charter and it would also make it better. It will create more "jobs" so more Regulars who are willing and capable of taking up this office. Believe it or not, the entire community will benefit from this.

 

7. Things are NOT working according to plan, and just because things are done in a certain way, that doesn't mean it is in accordance with the Charter. This proposal will provide a much needed position to oversee GM delegates without having to over-extend other offices beyond their original tasking.

 

8. There is no such thing as Officers getting powers automatically. Officers are assigned to the specific tasks of expertise as outlined by the Charter. Anything that grants people powers automatically should be questioned.

 

9. GMs are delegates of the GSO. Due to the wide scope of tasks currently entitled to the GSO, there is a need to separate the technical tasks of maintaining the server running healthy from the administrative tasks of dealing with bans & appeals, reviews, and dealing with GM delegates. If we were to vote in more Officers to the GSO, they wouldn't meet the technical requirements needed for that office to simply help with the moderating of the server.

 

10. It may seem crazy that an Officer won't have a say on an office other than his own, but that's how things work here. Plus, no other Officer has a say on your office either.

 

 

 

 

EDIT: typo

Edited by Rein

Share this post


Link to post

To further make clear why I see reason to connect this situation to a larger, heavier situation in UO, think of it like this: quite some time ago in UO, various people made some things here into drawn-out fight. All that's left unresolved costs UO again and again. So sorry everyone, but until that reckoning happens and certain things are settled, amendments as potentially problematic as this are not a good idea.

 

In fact, I'd call the idea an audacious slap in the face.

 

Let's not whine about drama, either. There is petty drama, and then there is determination and a refusal to be stuffy and pretend conflict is not conflict. Sometimes it just has to happen, and sometimes it's silly to refuse to contend when it still matters.

Share this post


Link to post

Right, I voted yes.

 

I can see the argument for as much as I can see the argument against. 

 

And I am in two minds as to, if this passes it has to be done properly according to our bylaws.

 

Items that come to mind are, we would need people we can trust in this position to ensure that matters will be handled in a non bias away as well as people that are willing to accept the concerns that will be brought forward by other officer/regs.

 

Now to address this, I looked away from why this poll was made and from the politics as to this sop says this and this sop says this. The politics bore me.

 

A few people may say it can be abused. However, we vote who we want in a office if they choose they want to be in that office. it is very east to vote no on a officer or Regular, this is a fundamental element of what UO is. I'm not going to get into it massively but this is the same for all officers, the WSO can ruin our forums easily. The PRO office could ruin our community's appearance and standing within the Arma2 community's player base. They don't, they are appointed because we trust them not to.

 

Now to the people here that do not know me, or haven't had much interaction with me:

  • I am a GM and i am a very active GM I aim to get between 6-10 hours minimum a week on the game server, I am always on TS and I am always helping the player base in any manner I can even through UOTC.
  • I want this, as a GM and as a regular I feel like my position comes with a lot of stress and takes a lot of time and from what I have seen, this can benefit my position.
  • My one issue with worrying about it being done correctly is fulfilled by spending the time to find out who wants to be in the office, and making sure i can work with them people and getting a idea of there mindset. 

 them people and getting a idea of there mindset.

 

 

 

Edit: Typos surprise supprise

Edited by Haribo

Share this post


Link to post

Words

Rein, I'm going to be honest with you. One of the great reasons I am very, very against this is because of the way you bring it up, as I find it almost entirely disingenuous. This is not just about 'fixing the Charter', as that would be a very, very simple thing to do, it is about creating a system that suits whatever your wants/needs are. As to what those are, I can't speak to them, as I'm not you. I believe I have a general picture, however.

 

Anyhow, point by point:

 

1. Change is often good. Often, not always.

 

2. I think that's a general statement.

 

3. Examples, please.

 

4. Explain the non-uniformity regarding the GM status right now. How is it...unfortunate for them, currently?

 

5. You understand voting, excellent.

 

6. "Better" is entirely subjective and not factual.

 

7. Things are not working according to whose plan?

 

8. It is not automatic, as Officer/GM powers are granted directly by the Charter. If that makes things automatic then everything already is?

 

9. Where are the examples in the vast shortcoming in handling bans/appeals/etc. at present?

 

10. To imply that there is no overlap in practice finds me believing you to be either misguided or ignorant as to the daily workings here. There is always some minor overlapping of duties due to coordination and the complexities of any system.

Share this post


Link to post

Rein, I'm going to be honest with you. One of the great reasons I am very, very against this is because of the way you bring it up, as I find it almost entirely disingenuous. This is not just about 'fixing the Charter', as that would be a very, very simple thing to do, it is about creating a system that suits whatever your wants/needs are. As to what those are, I can't speak to them, as I'm not you. I believe I have a general picture, however.

 

 

The only disingenuous thing here is using the SOPs the way they are being used right now. And to be very clear, this will remain an issue whether this proposal passes or not because it is congruent to the former.... And trust me, it will be addressed. 

 

It is indeed about fixing the Charter to pave way for solutions instead of patching cracks through generic SOPs that are not in accordance with the Charter to begin with. It is not a simple thing to do, and I would dare you to come up with a solution yourself.

 

It's about getting things fixed and not turning the blind eye.

Share this post


Link to post

The only disingenuous thing here is using the SOPs the way they are being used right now. And to be very clear, this will remain an issue whether this proposal passes or not because it is congruent to the former.... And trust me, it will be addressed. 

 

It is indeed about fixing the Charter to pave way for solutions instead of patching cracks through generic SOPs that are not in accordance with the Charter to begin with. It is not a simple thing to do, and I would dare you to come up with a solution yourself.

 

It's about getting things fixed and not turning the blind eye.

At no point did I suggest SOPs, as it could be done simply via Charter amendments. You are not fixing. You are destroying existing systems to rebuild them how you like. Edited by TinfoilHate

Share this post


Link to post

At no point did I suggest SOPs, as it could be done simply via Charter amendments. You are not fixing. You are destroying existing systems to rebuild them how you like.

I didn't say you were suggesting that, but that's the way things are being done right now.

 

Save that for the results of the poll. 

Edited by Rein

Share this post


Link to post

A lot of character assassination going on here, which is sad and disgusting.  Judge the poll on the merits and opinions expressed of the potential effects of the changes.

Share this post


Link to post

Game Moderator Officer, is it needed? I must say yes, it would be extremely important to make neccesary changes to get UO back on track and this is one step towards that goal.

 

It basically comes down to the fact that we want to make the community and the gameplay on the server better, fix the issues at our hand. Because there is a problem. The community is not what it was a year ago, or earlier. One year ago the server population was three times bigger than now. As a member who plays on the server regularly I must say that the GM situation is not adequate. The current system doesn't handle things well, it leads to attrition from regulars and members as well. Game Moderators get appointed without proper knowledge and preparedness or get removed unjustified. The GM Office would be able to reduce the attrition and govern the server populace better by handling the game moderators and with that the server more effectively, enforcing the UO mindset. This is the way we adapt to the changes.

 

In my opinion officers should keep their powers other than the GM appointment and recall. The current officer and the new GMO capabilities can operate concurrently. While the game related bans will be handled by the GMs, other Officers will not be stripped of this capability.

 

I completely disagree that it would place too much authority into one hand and that it would be easy to abuse its powers, which do not exceed any other offices. This is not about getting more power. Let's take each other seriously here, you are regulars, act like one.

 

The yes option is good for the community. Why would you vote no then? If you are a regular you are supposed to know what's best for UO.

Share this post


Link to post

The current system doesn't handle things well, it leads to attrition from regulars and members as well. Game Moderators get appointed without proper knowledge and preparedness or get removed unjustified.

How would this proposal prevent that?

Share this post


Link to post

I am voting no. I was a GM when the program was first initiated, later dropping the position due to server inactivity from university studies/life. GM's hold a lot of power, and along with forum moderators, are arguably the most entrusted delegates in the community. The proposed amendment eliminates the history of peer review that has persisted with the acceptance and termination of GM candidates. This system is vital because it is consensus-driven within the officer corps to determine if a candidate or appointment is worthy of the role. I believe it is of paramount importance that GM's be accepted and terminated in all due haste without the drama of a "removal poll" for these positions as proposed by this amendment. After all, their status as delegates of an office are at stake, not their status as a regular or member which justifies definitive action. In short, a new office is not needed. While I trust the intentions of the poll-creator are to take work off of other officers and attempt to make the process more efficient, if we look at historical evidence of adding officer positions, it only creates more work and more uncertainty in the long run.

 

Force

Share this post


Link to post

This is a much needed "first step" in the restructuring that United Operation needs.

 

You have no idea how glad I am you said that. I seriously cannot believe I am seeing that.

 

This is exactly what I thought this was. The first step in big change at UO! I don't trust you and that large group of regulars to restructure UO. I don't think you and them understand what the situation is here, nor what you are doing. Starting out with voting in a new officer position? Planting a tree in a burning field.

 

 

 

These become grounds for Officers to exceed their original tasks by being granted privileges through SOPs.

 

Again, I cannot believe you are just throwing this all out into the open. You want to limit the powers of the other officers, and you're using this SOP thing as an excuse to do so.

 

 

 

All offices are picking up the tab because there isn't any structuring.

 

Because they all kind of agreed to pick up the tab.

 

 

 

We must consolidate efforts in order to ensure maximum efficiency within the scope of work of a GM.

 

That doesn't matter as much as the constant controversy over what the GM should enforce, and why, and what would the GM be asked to do and support. The GM's could actually be forced by the GMO into a role of supporting a bunch of stuff that is basically against what the community is about.

 

 

 

It is evident that there will be a few people advocating for maintaining the status quo, and if you might ask, these are the same people that halt the development of any community due to the fact that they act in an act of selfishness.

 

Isn't that cute? Sorry, but a person can disagree strongly with your proposal, and then also not advocate to keep the status quo. Trying to preemptively associate opposition with selfishness is interesting to see, though. Getting a pretty clear picture here now.

 

 

 

3. Part of the reason people don't trust each other is because Officers are operating over a much higher scope than originally intended.

 

How do you even know what was originally intended? You weren't here. You don't even know where the deeper problems in UO come from.

 

It was part human cause, and part non-social causes which were easily unforeseen due to how all the people who made UO cannot see the future.

 

The biggest problem at UO (in the community and on the server) is that it is sensitive to disruption due to the community's mission and intent by design. It's just an ugly fact that a mix of familiar elements clogs up the flow of things here. A sort of unforeseen chemical process began fairly early on in the community.

 

Consider how these things end up when mixed together: common entertainment-seeking behavior, "gamer culture", the nature of nearly all other FPS games, misunderstandings, diversity of personalities, and the fact that people will act in bad faith and engage in disingenuous, self-serving, opportunistic behaviors. Now imagine that on a server that exists for the purpose of people consenting to cooperate and coordinate in good faith and with genuine interest. We have a lot of young people in a community in which a game is played with chain of command. People can get told what to do and what not to do. All those things together means a great deal of potential for clashing.

 

The heat is already turned up by the combination of it all, but UO is not an engine that can be turned off, disassembled, cleaned, and restarted. Once it started, all fixes had to happen with it running. That conditions caused by this combination of forces was not foreseen, but, it did run, and it's produced some of the greatest experiences in gaming and sims we will ever see. UO is an exceedingly rare thing.

 

There is the reason I will risk looking like a gigantic rabid asshole about all of this. If we want to bring about major solutions to problems, we should trace back to the earliest problems and cut them off at the root.

 

What you are trying to do is. . . vote in a new officer position. We don't need that. You strike me as being scandalized and deciding to poll something to stick it to the officers.

 

 

 

to oversee GM delegates without having to over-extend other offices beyond their original tasking.

 

That's funny, I don't think any of the officers have complained about being over-extended.

 

 

 

I say we get over our differences and do something together for the greater good of the community.

 

How is removing power from the current officers and giving it to a GMO "for the greater good of the community"?

Edited by CroMagnon

Share this post


Link to post

A lot of character assassination going on here, which is sad and disgusting.  Judge the poll on the merits and opinions expressed of the potential effects of the changes.

This.

Share this post


Link to post

Knock it off.

 

Stick to the topic and avoid attacking each other.

 

Act mature.

Share this post


Link to post

 It would also make sense to have GM delegates under offiers who actually play the game. For me it is anyway.

Share this post


Link to post

azzwort  I frequently hear the GMs that come to Mark's channel talk about this issue and it makes sense why you won't hear about it because you can remove them if they say something you don't like[not saying you would, but the ability is there], most of their discussion revolves around cases like Boon threatening to remove Kingslayer as a GM in Boon's removal thread.

Since no one responded to my post I'll just respond to this one: First off, ZZEZ, commas.

 

Second: If boon had done so I would have blocked it. I told kingslayer as much. A GMO is not beholden to anyone, and if this situation arose with a GMO threatening a GM, I couldn't do anything. Which I feel is a major flaw in this system.

 

Third, other than that one example which I am able to defend further if you like, can you show other times where it would have been better for one person to be in charge? I personally cannot think of a situation where officer review has created problems within the community or for GMs. But please, give some examples. Again, I vote no because there is a stated problem that doesn't seem to be based on anything, and I'd like to hear of the specifics of the situations that spurred the need for this change.

Edited by azzwort

Share this post


Link to post

I think that having a new officer position would allow more people to become active within the community. Some positions we have may not intrigue members here such as the GM's and this would allow them to have their own office, and, having their own specific roles and duties that they need to uphold. 

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...