Jump to content

Addition of 4.10 to the charter: Barrier of Entry  

90 members have voted

  1. 1. Addition of 4.10 to the charter: Barrier of Entry

    • Yes
      65
    • No
      25


Recommended Posts

Currently members playing our server are held to behavioral rules defined in 4.x. After over a year of extensive discussion community consensus has been established that the level of tactical play of the server should be raised and those unable to perform should be barred. The proposed implementation to accomplish this is establishment of a "barrier of entry", an additional step that must be completed before play on the server is possible. This poll is to amend section 4 to specifically require tactical knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs) of those playing on the server.

 

Concept

 

barrier_of_entry.png

  • UOTC will endorse or furnish a tactical guide which will define the KSAs. KSAs should be considered essential skills of the soldier.
  • All players must affirm that they posses the KSAs as outlined in the guide before granted access to the server information - this process of affirmation is referred to in the graphic as a "Self-policing qualification"
    • Players are given a variety of options to qualify themselves:
      • studying the guide OR
      • previous knowledge or
      • by taking training offered by UOTC (subject to availability) - or
      • a combination of the aforementioned
  • All players will be expected to perform the KSAs or face administrative action by the currently logged in admin, GM, or officer
    • First time offenders will be kicked, warned to review materials and referred to re-qualify themselves
    • Repeat offenders will be banned until they are endorsed by UOTC as having completed the Basic Soldiering Course. For terms of this poll the Basic Soldiering Course is ANY qualification endorsed by UOTC and does not necessarily need to be a course. The intended implementation is Thawk's Basic Soldiering Course.
Implementation

 

1. Charter Amendment

 

4.0 Rules:

 

Operations to add or amended rules must pass with a three-fourths (3/4) majority vote lasting two (2) weeks. We submit to the following rules in order to benefit the community at large:

  • 4.1 - Cheating and hacking shall result in immediate and permanent removal from our community.
  • 4.2 - The chain of command shall be respected during games.
  • 4.3 - Players shall not intentionally team kill or otherwise disrupt game play.
  • 4.4 - Player shall not engage in Forum/TeamSpeak spamming or otherwise disruptive behavior.
  • 4.5 - Players shall respect each other and act accordingly.
  • 4.6 - The rules of this community, the provisions so outlined in this document and the Standard Operating Procedures shall inform player conduct expectations.
  • 4.7 - The rules of this community shall be applied equally across all mediums and services including, the Forums, TeamSpeak, and Game Servers.
  • 4.8 - All operations of government must be publicly displayed. Any Regular may request and shall be entitled to any and all information regarding administrative operations.
  • 4.9 - Sobriety will be required by individuals in leadership positions: both within the game and within the community’s offices.
 

to:

 

4.0 Rules:

 

Operations to add or amended rules must pass with a three-fourths (3/4) majority vote lasting two (2) weeks. We submit to the following rules in order to benefit the community at large:

  • 4.1 - Cheating and hacking shall result in immediate and permanent removal from our community.
  • 4.2 - The chain of command shall be respected during games.
  • 4.3 - Players shall not intentionally team kill or otherwise disrupt game play.
  • 4.4 - Player shall not engage in Forum/TeamSpeak spamming or otherwise disruptive behavior.
  • 4.5 - Players shall respect each other and act accordingly.
  • 4.6 - The rules of this community, the provisions so outlined in this document and the Standard Operating Procedures shall inform player conduct expectations.
  • 4.7 - The rules of this community shall be applied equally across all mediums and services including, the Forums, TeamSpeak, and Game Servers.
  • 4.8 - All operations of government must be publicly displayed. Any Regular may request and shall be entitled to any and all information regarding administrative operations.
  • 4.9 - Sobriety will be required by individuals in leadership positions: both within the game and within the community’s offices.
  • 4.10 - Players on the ARMA series servers must affirm that they possess certain tactical knowledge, skills and abilities essential to the soldier as furnished or endorsed by the United Operations Training Center in a Tactical Guide before being granted access to server connection details. Players must perform on the servers in accordance to the aforementioned. Those unable to perform will be removed from the server, advised to revisit the Tactical Guide, reaffirm their knowledge, skills and abilities and are permitted back on the server. Repeat offenders will be banned until they meet qualification criteria under the discretion of the United Operations Training Center.
2. Orders to Offices

 

In addition to the charter amendment this poll issues several standing orders:

  • If UOTC is unable to furnish a tactical guide by the completion date, Hellhound's Guide will be used as a substitute until UOTC can furnish it's own materials
  • If the Basic Soldering Course is not prepared by the completion date, UOTC must be prepared to qualify banned individuals in an alternative fashion of their own discretion.
  • The web server officers must modify the welcome guide and server rules page to require all players to manually affirm that they possess the KSAs as defined in the tactical guide, including a link to said guide.
  • GM SOPs and best practices must reflect the new KSA requirement by the completion of this poll

 

This poll requires a 3/4 vote and 2 weeks.

Share this post


Link to post

This is an excellent solution to the present problem of low-quality play on the servers, and I hope to see it implemented at the earliest possible time. If UOTC is up to the task of producing all the associated documentation, how could you vote against it?

 

EDIT: That said, it's rather a misnomer, since there's no barrier to entry as the original idea detailed; What this does constitute is a more streamlined process for dealing with people who don't meet the standard.

Edited by Wolfie

Share this post


Link to post

I vote yes.

 

I believe this system will provide a robust way forward for improving play on the server. It can be further expanded by involved parties and is flexible enough to allow a minimal initial commitment but support extensive future developments.

 

It has been endorsed by Thawk, the original barrier of entry designer. It has been endorsed by community consensus in two discussion threads and prior informal teamspeak discussion culminating over one year:

http://forums.unitedoperations.net/index.php/topic/19920-get-barrier-of-entry-rolling-attn-uotc-officers-and-all-regulars/

http://forums.unitedoperations.net/index.php/topic/16990-discussion-arma-barrier-to-entry-concept/

 

... it's rather a misnomer, since there's no barrier to entry as the original idea detailed; What this does constitute is a more streamlined process for dealing with people who don't meet the standard.

The barrier of entry is the requirement for players to have tactical KSAs - they have had to invest time to either: study the guide, gain knowledge prior (military/realism units/equivalent reading etc) OR be trained by UOTC. That is a barrier - it's just implemented in a way which is flexible enough to offer a variety of ways past it.

Edited by krause

Share this post


Link to post

Background discussions on this topic and related.   If you are unfamiliar with the subject matter, it behooves you to take a look at previous discussion before plowing the same field for the 6th time.

 

http://forums.unitedoperations.net/index.php/topic/19920-get-barrier-of-entry-rolling-attn-uotc-officers-and-all-regulars/

http://forums.unitedoperations.net/index.php/topic/19408-discussiona-companion-for-barrier-to-entry/

http://forums.unitedoperations.net/index.php/topic/20131-blacklist-ideas-for-improvement/

 

 

Edit: nice job on the standing orders, that's a good poll sir!

Edited by GloryAndPain

Share this post


Link to post

im a little confused by the flow chart but I am on the fence about this. on one hand it may or may not raise the qulity of play. on the other hand I dont have faith that there is anybody willing and capable of carrying this out.

Share this post


Link to post

I fully support this. It is written in the best way possible will all avenues of approach considered for solving a complex problem which has slowly dissipated into the community. That is non-serious and completely oblivious players joining in directly onto the server with absolutely no experience. Arma 2 on release was a much smaller community filled with people who knew what they were getting into with an arma 2 purchase. A buggy as hell, wonky, but fun experience if played the right way. Now with a surprisingly stable arma :ohmy:, DayZ, and the massive arma 2/3 sales, the level of gameplay has decayed quite a bit. This is from players not able to maintain a level of play that we as regulars and founders of the community came to expect from playing with UO. This concept will create a "barrier" of simple knowledge that can only improve the general gameplay on the primary arma server.

(hellhounds guide is the shit)

Edited by fusionpoo

Share this post


Link to post

I also fully support this. It's about time we get it because the current system doesn't work anymore.

Voting yes!

Share this post


Link to post

I fully support this. To be very clear, this is as much of a "barrier to entry" as our current standards -- that UO is a community of people who know, or are willing to learn, "their shit". Simply, this now enforces those standards in a very real and absolute way.

 

What does this mean for the end user? Being part of more competent squads, or having more competent teammates underneath you. Everyone having a fixed, known amount of tactical knowledge that they, and you, can rely upon. This proposal would increase gameplay on our servers, end of story.

Share this post


Link to post

Creating a framework in which people are held accountable for not only their conduct but also their capability is an important prerequisite for increasing the quality of play on the server. This gives a mandate for UOTC to create training with the expressed purpose of impacting play on the server and a means by which this training can become a standard to which individuals will be held. I think this is a positive step in the right direction. 

Share this post


Link to post

I would like to hear from the UOTC people on this subject.

Share this post


Link to post

I support this motion, but I am still left guessing if our current infrastructure can handle this load. Historically we have seen high turnover in the UOTC department and its leadership. If the UOTC machine breaks down, our community will hit a large speed bump. If it can be assured from UOTC that this will not be an issue, then I support this motion without reservation. I have faith in UOTC and will be voting yes.

 

Force

Edited by Force_Majeure

Share this post


Link to post

UOTC has never been an office busied by the politics of UO. Of all of the offices, we have the most clear and understood purpose and task. I will focus on doing the job that the community wants me to do and will not involve myself in rhetorical debate when I could be writing lesson plans. The only time I really will speak up is if the idea is outside the scope of our ability or would seriously hinder our effectiveness. With regards to this program, it does not fulfill either of those criteria, however, it will just add another task to an already huge list of demands that the community has for us and we are trying to simultaneously accomplish. If the community wants your barrier to entry program, and votes to direct the UOTC to develop this program, Zumorc and I will do that. The UOTC will always try to serve the needs of the community and follow a direction set forth by its members.

This was my response that I think sums it up best. My personal opinion is, at this time, adding any more work to UOTC's plate makes it incredibly difficult to get anything done. Do I like the idea? Yes. But it's very easy for someone to vote purely based on the end result rather than the practicality and feasibility of its implementation. I would rather complete the work I have right now and, once UOTC is on the right track, begin to diversify our responsibilities. We are all trying to accomplish the same thing (a higher standard of play) in many different ways. However, we're exploring these options at the same time without judging the effectiveness of one method before implementing another. It's like doing two experiments at the same time on the same subject and trying to figure out which of the experiments caused which results.
 
If UOTC accomplishes what we already intend, we will have a product that educates people to the level we want to see and provides users an easy and simple method of being educated. It also does it in a way that will encourage people to educate themselves outside of it being a requirement or a way of not being punished. If we end up with what we want, people will actually want to learn and there might not be a necessity for a barrier to entry program in the first place. There are people who doubt UOTC's capability of achieving this goal in a reasonable time frame, and might want to seek a more concrete solution. However, if UOTC's ability is suspect, implementing any other program that requires our participation seems contradictory.
 
This is not an argument to vote no or yes on the poll. Use it to make an informed decision. I will mostly likely recuse myself and abstain.
 
One addition: there were already plans prior to the creation of this poll for UOTC to create a similar program in a way that would fit best into our larger plan for the future. This program will now have to be altered or scrapped altogether. We had planned to implement this as a game server SOP in coordination with the GSO rather than as a Charter addition. Now, if we want to make any adjustments to the program, we will have to poll for it rather than just change the SOP. This limits our effectiveness and makes it more difficult for us to adapt.
Edited by Albatross

Share this post


Link to post

 

This was my response that I think sums it up best. My personal opinion is, at this time, adding any more work to UOTC's plate makes it incredibly difficult to get anything done. Do I like the idea? Yes. But it's very easy for someone to vote purely based on the end result rather than the practicality and feasibility of its implementation. I would rather complete the work I have right now and, once UOTC is on the right track, begin to diversify our responsibilities. We are all trying to accomplish the same thing (a higher standard of play) in many different ways. However, we're exploring these options at the same time without judging the effectiveness of one method before implementing another. It's like doing two experiments at the same time on the same subject and trying to figure out which of the experiments caused which results.
 
If UOTC accomplishes what we already intend, we will have a product that educates people to the level we want to see and provides users an easy and simple method of being educated. It also does it in a way that will encourage people to educate themselves outside of it being a requirement or a way of not being punished. If we end up with what we want, people will actually want to learn and there might not be a necessity for a barrier to entry program in the first place. There are people who doubt UOTC's capability of achieving this goal in a reasonable time frame, and might want to seek a more concrete solution. However, if UOTC's ability is suspect, implementing any other program that requires our participation seems contradictory.
 
This is not an argument to vote no or yes on the poll. Use it to make an informed decision. I will mostly likely recuse myself and abstain.
 
One addition: there were already plans prior to the creation of this poll for UOTC to create a similar program in a way that would fit best into our larger plan for the future. This program will now have to be altered or scrapped altogether. We had planned to implement this as a game server SOP in coordination with the GSO rather than as a Charter addition. Now, if we want to make any adjustments to the program, we will have to poll for it rather than just change the SOP. This limits our effectiveness and makes it more difficult for us to adapt.

 

You have two requirements by this poll:

  • If UOTC is unable to furnish a tactical guide by the completion date, Hellhound's Guide will be used as a substitute until UOTC can furnish it's own materials
  • If the Basic Soldering Course is not prepared by the completion date, UOTC must be prepared to qualify banned individuals in an alternative fashion of their own discretion.

The first requires no work.

 

The second requires a few minutes of work over the duration of this poll. Are you telling me that you are unable to come up with an "alternative" qualification that is not a course? I.e. it could involve a simple interview, or even a promise by the user to have read the guide. For the record Thawk, a UOTC instructor, has informed you that his course is ready to go in the first linked discussion thread.

 

Now let's assume the course is not ready - you have to come up with an alternative that has been so broadly defined it could be anything. If you're unable to fulfill that miniscule labor (15 minutes of thinking up an alternative in lieu of a course), why are you an officer? You're just required to take some leadership by this poll, and that's your job.

 

Further, regarding your plan to make game server SOPs which let you do whatever you want - the game server officer is not a lawmaker of the server. He does not make rules regarding player conduct. The charter does. Doing so would not be allowed and for good reason. One or two people should not have the latitude to define how all the players behave - and they don't. Such questions must be decided by the community.

Edited by krause

Share this post


Link to post

I have been very excited to see this implemented. Although not a real barrier that forces a course before being able to play on the server, as originally discussed, this provides a clear path that is to be taken if a user is unable to display the required amount of competency on the game server. This will improve game-play quality as those who are detrimental to it will be removed until they can display the required amount of competency in the lowest role. I would vote yes.

 

 

EDIT - What is the standard, if any, to how it is determined that someone has initiated an offense, or repeat offense? I think it would help to implement key pointers to look out for when issuing an offense to a player.

Edited by Gabee

Share this post


Link to post

Based on what Albatross said, it seems to me that the UOTC officers could implement and manage themselves to whatever program they might come up with through an SOP, which happens to fall entirely within the scope of their office.

 

By amending the charter with this "Barrier of Entry" referendum instead of creating an SOP, every time an UOTC officer might need to make any changes/adaptations, it would pose an immense constrain due to the abysmal protocols in place to amend the charter.

 

Voting no on this proposal for the reasons mentioned above.

Edited by Rein

Share this post


Link to post

In my personal opinion we will only overcome the problems with the quality and standard of play on our server by a concerted effort of the community to promote, reinforce and mandate said standard.
In order to be able to do that said standard, which is currently nothing more than an undefined abstract term everybody would probably explain differently, needs to be defined and communicated by the community as such.
These are steps that we already have been taking and will continue to take even if this poll should fail.
The decisive part however, that will decide whether we'll make a positive impact on the server or not, lays in the enforcement of this standard and the regulatory framework for the administration of it (or what is currently covered under the last "standing order" ["GM SOPs and best practices must reflect the new KSA requirement by the completion of this poll"]). We will only succeed if we are able to regulate, supervise and mange the enforcement of the standard in a consistent and clearly defined and standardized fashion. This proposal puts the enforcement of our standard in the hands of our Officers/Game Moderators, Regulars and non-regulars acting as Admin on our primary server at the time an individual fails to perform to it. With the current composition of our game moderators, regulars and non-regs we need a clear regulatory framework that regulates the proactive enforcement of the standard people will be held accountable for from now on. 

If we fail to set up the proper foundation for this we might end up creating nothing more than additional drama in our Bans/Appeals forum without having created any positive effect on the Primary Server game play.

Share this post


Link to post

 

 

By amending the charter with this "Barrier of Entry" referendum instead of creating an SOP, every time an UOTC officer might need to make any changes/adaptations, it would pose an immense constrain due to the abysmal protocols in place to amend the charter.

Where is your textual evidence of this claim?

 

Here is what is being added to the charter:

4.10 - Players on the ARMA series servers must affirm that they possess certain tactical knowledge, skills and abilities essential to the soldier as furnished or endorsed by the United Operations Training Center in a Tactical Guide before being granted access to server connection details. Players must perform on the servers in accordance to the aforementioned. Those unable to perform will be removed from the server, advised to revisit the Tactical Guide, reaffirm their knowledge, skills and abilities and are permitted back on the server. Repeat offenders will be banned until they meet qualification criteria under the discretion of the United Operations Training Center.

 

 

If the KSAs are "furnished or endorsed" (created OR validated) through the Tactical Guide by UOTC  - how would this limit UOTC's workload? Further, the KSAs are not defined in the charter but in the Tactical Guide - so why would you need to modify the charter in order to make "Changes/adaptations."

 

Furthermore, as I highlighted in my previous post, no officer has the ability to change the fundamental expectations of players on the server, only to implement them through SOP. That's why the charter exists.

Edited by krause

Share this post


Link to post

Color me a bit confused.

 

What exactly are you proposing here as a "barrier"? You're referencing these KSAs and a self-policing qualification, but don't really go into much other detail. Do you intend to simply have a rule in which players are expected to know various details and such ahead of time before joining the server and failing to know them after being prompted by someone or it coming up gets them kicked off? That already exists to a extent in the "Incompetence" ban option, though that's a bit more of a glaring fault. (That said, however, if it's not exactly a glaring fault then that implies the person is at least trying and just confused.)

 

I don't see how anything will really change with this set up. New players will still be absolutely bombarded by information from UO-specific things, ACRE, ACE and general Arma shenanigans. Now instead of someone taking maybe a minute to answer any questions someone might be confused about, such as advanced radios or whatever have you, while in one of the many downtime periods between missions (Such as walking or waiting) you have a clause to kick that confused person off the server instead. Yeah, that'll teach 'em. Don't come back, you! Don't even know what a peel is. god.

 

I am honestly just seeing the negatives here. You're not really going to push people to learn any more then they already would. All you're doing is giving GMs a kick button if someone doesn't necessarily know all their stuff. My jaded imagination sees this even be used as a attack on some people if someone else simply doesn't like the way people play. Even among our high speed regulars that "standard" varies, be it due to just personal preference, nationality or what have you. Now, that said, I don't think your proposed KSAs would go that high up the "competency" ladder, but none the less.

 

Your proposed standards would have to be extremely well written, informative and concise. Telling would-be players they have to go through and memorize a fat manual before they can even get the chance to try the server isn't exactly going to go over to well!

 

The person who heralded the vote should have waited until their proposed KSAs were actually made up. This is far to nebulous otherwise. Buuuut I don't get much of a say in this matter.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...