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

That's a great leap of faith in newcomers if you think about it.

 

How can we expect people to be mature if we don't trust them to even read a 2 page guide?

Share this post


Link to post

I agree with Mongo. It is actually how close Miles you are to this solution, but you seem to be against it still.

 

Because your solution is: 1. Do course  2. Get password

Proposal: 1. Affirm that you know what the course teaches and get password  2. You fuck up -> Do the course (or whatever)

Current:  1. New person gets on server. 2. New person picks a mission critical asset, crashes on the server  2a. Then I have to prove negligence/"accident"/intention as Mr. Antonio has trying to tell everyone I have no clue what that is (no offense Antonio, but that is what you were doing) 3. New person needs to be warned first and this has to be put into the member review 4. New user has to do multiple cases with multiple users.

5. New user may now be blacklisted.

 

This is what we are dealing here very very roughly. Let me just say that after the new user fucks up my experience, I have to dig through logs, then I have to talk to people, since I probably didnt see it myself, then I have to file the ban, then I have to add all this to the forums etc. You call this fun?

 

As far as what you said earlier.

 

You are incorrect Miles. I cannot disallow newbies. Trust me I would if I could.

 

 

What you are talking about is the role of the GM and admins.  That's just part of those roles and yes it sucks.  But you're always going to have people, including regulars, who will fuck up your experience from time to time and who will get banned from time to time.   That's always been the case.  Yes, it's a lot of work banning people and this proposal wouldn't simplify the process.   It would however give you the power to disallow newbies, but I can't vote yes on it unless we have a detailed list of the steps that an admin needs to take before a newbie is banned so that you simply don't get pissed off and ban a newbie because they made a small mistake or ruined your immersion in some manner before getting warnings.  

 

It's not going to be easy to administrate, but if this is the path we decide to take (instead of just putting up with some noobs and hoping that they'll learn over time), then it's going to require real work.  There is no avoiding that.   We just need a clear set of guidelines on how to execute this new charter amendment instead of  leaving it for some officers to come up with their own SOP's later on (that might have serious flaws and room for abuse).   In other words, we all need to be on the same page of music if we are going to do this.  If we can do that, I will support this if the poll is re-written with those details.  I'm also sure that a lot of other people will support it as well if a clear plan of execution is added (with examples of do's and don'ts).    Again Scope had some of the most logical and clearest suggestions regarding those details of execution that people need to go back and read.

 

Edited by miles teg

Share this post


Link to post

Because you look tasty? 

 

Antonio everyone was new once not everyone was a fuck up. This way is fair everyone has the same chance to get into UO as everyone before hand. It is ok for you as you joined before this was proposed it doesn't sit well that others have to be tested just because they were late to the party. What is more this rule will apply to old members as well. It is the fairer option in my opinion.

 

Miles I understand your concern but really if we can agree on the frame work the fine details can be worked out via testing and discussion and at least we have some agreement on a solution. If this fails we go back to square one and things will continue to decline. I understand that this will not be enacted until there is detailed frame work (it can't without one) we can have a later discussion on these points later but for the moment we need to move forward with this. Out of all the proposals this upsets the least number of people which has to be a good thing.

Share this post


Link to post

Its a double edged sword miles, by defining a hard set of rules, requirements and steps in the amendment you do clarify the intent down to the letter, but at the same time you completely tie your hands if you need to make further adjustments to the system in the future, or if you find a major flaw you need to fix.  The lack of hard specifics allows those to be defined through SOP much like much of UO is run today,  It allows for flexibility and adaptation as we proceed into the future.  I don't think there have ever been any SOPs (at least any that lasted more than a very breif period) which were detrimental to the community.  When something needs adjusting it happens, and no one in a position to define these SOPs is out to hurt the community.  

 

In fact there is an additional recourse in the fact that if someone is defining SOPs that the community finds problematic, and they wont change, you can vote them out of office so that someone else can fix the issue.  If we hard wire all this information and requirements and rules into the charter, the only way to change it will be a charter amendment, which as you can see can be a bitch to pass, and takes considerable time to prepapre, discuss and then vote on.  SOPs are much easier to adjust to suit the community.   

 

EDIT: Why does everyone call me Mango?

Hmm.... that's another good point you make.  (sigh)

I do disagree however with some of our current SOP's especially regarding the criteria for how missions are removed from the primary.  But officers get very very defensive when you challenge their SOP's.  That's why I'm hesitant to simply leave it to SOPs especially if we don't have one standard one that all GM's and admins must abide by until it's modified.  The SOP must also at least be posted publicly and then edited as needed.   But say if for example, the poll did pass, who would be in charge of developing this SOP as far as execution of these new rules?     If whoever is in charge of developing this single SOP could chime in and give an example of the SOP they want to use I might change my vote to "yes".   But so far the only clear example I've seen is that put forth by Scope. 

Edit*  

Regarding your name:

Sorry Mongo.... I just like Mangos so that's probably why.  I mean who doesn't like Mangos.  lol!

Edited by miles teg

Share this post


Link to post

And good point Cunnah. Do we rather alienate new players, most of them who probably aren't interested in tactical and structured gameplay else they wouldn't mind reading a guide, or do we alienate people that are fed up with that their efforts to maintain a quality of gameplay are in vain?

 

There are a lot of new players, who are interested in tactical and structured gameplay, who took the time to do their homework before playing on the primary (even if you can't make the famil course, it's not such a big deal to read a guide or watch one of the many UOTC videos on youtube) and they are also alienated.

Share this post


Link to post

Ok, so you are saying that people who are forced to sit through a course will be attentive & will learn and make a statement like that?

 

Ok, so you are saying that people whom you ask to just read a guide will be ready to play at UO, and not only that but you'll take their word for it and, in case of a fuck up, will redirect again to the same guide, all again in the sake of good faith? And this will improve gameplay quality, how...?

 

If you honesty to God believe this lazy approach will enhance gameplay, by all means, be my guest. Also, it is a bit rude of you to belittle UOTC's courses like that.

 

Because you look tasty? 

 

Antonio everyone was new once not everyone was a fuck up. This way is fair everyone has the same chance to get into UO as everyone before hand. It is ok for you as you joined before this was proposed it doesn't sit well that others have to be tested just because they were late to the party. What is more this rule will apply to old members as well. It is the fairer option in my opinion.

 

Miles I understand your concern but really if we can agree on the frame work the fine details can be worked out via testing and discussion and at least we have some agreement on a solution. If this fails we go back to square one and things will continue to decline. I understand that this will not be enacted until there is detailed frame work (it can't without one) we can have a later discussion on these points later but for the moment we need to move forward with this. Out of all the proposals this upsets the least number of people which has to be a good thing.

 

I never said my idea wouldn't be retroactive. You could set a bar to exclude people from taking the course to those who've played for more than, say, a month, or have a certain amount of hours logged and haven't had any serious bans recently. After that, it's fair game for everyone, as everyone will be subject to the same regulations and punishment for their actions.

Edited by AntonioHandsome

Share this post


Link to post

Antonio you just proved my point you have just given a pass to people who were here before the rule. That is what I find unfair. You could try suggesting we ban everyone until they have done a famil and see how far that gets you ;). You are also deliberately missing the point that continued ignorance is grounds for a ban. That is a good incentive to actually read the damn thing.

 

Recondo. I agree that their may be but I cannot attest to people I don't talk to. I am not saying that new players aren't interested in milsim but I can't comment without facts.

Share this post


Link to post

Antonio you just proved my point you have just given a pass to people who were here before the rule. That is what I find unfair. You could try suggesting we ban everyone until they have done a famil and see how far that gets you :wink:. You are also deliberately missing the point that continued ignorance is grounds for a ban. That is a good incentive to actually read the damn thing.

 

Recondo. I agree that their may be but I cannot attest to people I don't talk to. I am not saying that new players aren't interested in milsim but I can't comment without facts.

 

If you have played at UO for 60 hours and haven't had any serious bans recorded, it'd seem logical that you're more than ready to play at UO, and thus have automatically passed the Famil. Course requirement. This is both on grounds of logic (more than enough experience) and administrative efficiency (as to not saturate UOTC with extra-large Famil. Courses because everyone who doesn't have it has to take it, even if they've been playing at UO since it was created).

 

Honestly, the cost of giving a pass to people with proven, tracked experience ingame seems to outweighs in every way the possibility that a few players might not have qualified had they taken the Course, which you can anyway correct later on should issues arise with a ban thread.

Share this post


Link to post

Ok, so you are saying that people whom you ask to just read a guide will be ready to play at UO, and not only that but you'll take their word for it and, in case of a fuck up, will redirect again to the same guide, all again in the sake of good faith? And this will improve gameplay quality, how...?

 

If you honesty to God believe this lazy approach will enhance gameplay, by all means, be my guest. Also, it is a bit rude of you to belittle UOTC's courses like that.

 

1) I am not belittling UOTC's courses. In fact, I am echoing many former UOTC Officers and Current Instructor's own views on people who're forced into courses.

2) Everyone can make a mistake. Doing one thing badly is not a problem, persistently doing things badly is.

3) No, I am saying that people who I have asked to read a guide will be able to understand what is happening & be in a much better position to get into the mindset expected on the server.

Share this post


Link to post

1) I am not belittling UOTC's courses. In fact, I am echoing many former UOTC Officers and Current Instructor's own views on people who're forced into courses.

2) Everyone can make a mistake. Doing one thing badly is not a problem, persistently doing things badly is.

3) No, I am saying that people who I have asked to read a guide will be able to understand what is happening & be in a much better position to get into the mindset expected on the server.

 

1) That begs the question as to why they keep insisting on following the current methods, but that discussion most likely does not belong in this thread.

2) Agreed. Now, how do you think you can avoid such mistakes and/or game disruptive behaviour more efficiently, by testing people and then granting them access, or by giving them access without any sort of serious, live test (other than a quizz) and then live-testing them on the Primary?

3) lol you really think everyone will sit and read through a guide when there's no adecuate system in place to check whether they're ready for playing or not (because, let's face it, the 'threat' of being asked to read through a guide again is not really that threatening).

Share this post


Link to post

There are a lot of new players, who are interested in tactical and structured gameplay, who took the time to do their homework before playing on the primary (even if you can't make the famil course, it's not such a big deal to read a guide or watch one of the many UOTC videos on youtube) and they are also alienated.

I meant it as that the majority of those that are alienated probably wouldn't fit in our community anyway. Not that the majority of all players are unfit for UO (even though that too probably is the case I have no numbers to solidify that claim, other than the server pop of public Wasteland, Domi, and DayZ servers). My bad for being unclear in my post.

 

 

1) That begs the question as to why they keep insisting on following the current methods, but that discussion most likely does not belong in this thread.

2) Agreed. Now, how do you think you can avoid such mistakes and/or game disruptive behaviour more efficiently, by testing people and then granting them access, or by giving them access without any sort of serious, live test (other than a quizz) and then live-testing them on the Primary?

3) lol you really think everyone will sit and read through a guide when there's no adecuate system in place to check whether they're ready for playing or not (because, let's face it, the 'threat' of being asked to read through a guide again is not really that threatening).

1) They are NOT insisting on following the current methods. I dare you to find something supporting that claim. Just because they haven't finished the new systems doesn't mean they think the current ones are perfect.

 

3) Some people definitely will skip that. They are the same people that wouldn't listen to a single word spoken during an entire Famil Course. They are bad off either way. The only way to filter those before entering the server would be to test them mouth-to-mouth.

Edited by Inkompetent

Share this post


Link to post

That's a great leap of faith in newcomers if you think about it.

 

I'm pretty sure you can run a course twice or once a week and be completely fine with it. If anything, the somewhat higher wait time should serve as a deterrent to bad players who might ruin everyone's gameplay.

And what about guys in Australia? Or A lot of guys in Eastern Europe?

Who is going to give them the course? You expect instructors to get up at night to give it?

 

Read the original BTE thread, it was discussed their a lot.

Share this post


Link to post

I meant it as that the majority of those that are alienated probably wouldn't fit in our community anyway. Not that the majority of all players are unfit for UO (even though that too probably is the case I have no numbers to solidify that claim, other than the server pop of public Wasteland, Domi, and DayZ servers). My bad for being unclear in my post.

 

1) They are NOT insisting on following the current methods. I dare you to find something supporting that claim. Just because they haven't finished the new systems doesn't mean they think the current ones are perfect.

 

3) Some people definitely will skip that. They are the same people that wouldn't listen to a single word spoken during an entire Famil Course. They are bad off either way. The only way to filter those before entering the server would be to test them mouth-to-mouth.

 

1) I should probably rephrase that, I didn't mean to imply they were completely fine with how things are regarding UOTC. In any case, not really that relevant.

3) That's why, ideally, you'd test them live during the Famil. Course, in some sort of Coop that would put all the skills required to test. After that, if they really are faking it all and start being disruptive, simply fill a ban against them. As you said yourself, the only way to test them would be by interacting with them, which according to the proposed BoE, wouldn't happen until after the first incident, when the user would be asked to re-read/take/re-take a course.

 

p.s. The notion that all DayZ players engage in a non-tactical approach to the game is ludicrous, at best.

Edited by AntonioHandsome

Share this post


Link to post

Disagree, there is nothing special about tactical Tuesday that separates it from any other day on the server, other than the PEOPLE that play.

Which greatly improves the quality of gameplay..

Share this post


Link to post

Which greatly improves the quality of gameplay..

And those PEOPLE will play, when you give them the enjoyable environment and rules to maintain that environment. If you don't people will play something else.

Edited by Rambo2

Share this post


Link to post

Hmm.... that's another good point you make.  (sigh)

I do disagree however with some of our current SOP's especially regarding the criteria for how missions are removed from the primary.  But officers get very very defensive when you challenge their SOP's.  That's why I'm hesitant to simply leave it to SOPs especially if we don't have one standard one that all GM's and admins must abide by until it's modified.  The SOP must also at least be posted publicly and then edited as needed.   But say if for example, the poll did pass, who would be in charge of developing this SOP as far as execution of these new rules?     If whoever is in charge of developing this single SOP could chime in and give an example of the SOP they want to use I might change my vote to "yes".   But so far the only clear example I've seen is that put forth by Scope. 

Edit*  

Regarding your name:

Sorry Mongo.... I just like Mangos so that's probably why.  I mean who doesn't like Mangos.  lol!

 

No worries on the name, though I don't like Mangos which is probably why I get upset about it.

 

I think your desire to see something is valid.  As per the OP the basic skills that persons would be assessed on would be defined by UOTC, or until such a time as they develop those SOPs/Documents we would use hellhound's guide as a primer.  

Enforcement SOPs would I assume fall to the GSO dept or GMO.  They would have to define something like "Users who fail to display basic competency may be reported, and their report reviewed, first strike blah blah blah, 2nd strike blah blah blah" much like our banning guideline SOPs currently in place, in fact it may just be an extension of that.  Of course it will also need the wording to define when they can return after a ban, which would be something like approval from UOTC etc.   

 

I dont know the details, I dont even play here anymore, but I have hopes that this could actually help the community establish a base line level of knoweldge and competence at all times, and not only on tactical tuesdays.  I want to come back i really do, but the drama and some of the instanity makes it difficult to dedicate time.  

 

Hopefully Impulse/Krause/Albatros etc can hop in here and shine some light on your request.  And yes I agree it should all be posted publicly and edited quickly as needed, as should all SOPs really.

Share this post


Link to post

I meant it as that the majority of those that are alienated probably wouldn't fit in our community anyway. Not that the majority of all players are unfit for UO (even though that too probably is the case I have no numbers to solidify that claim, other than the server pop of public Wasteland, Domi, and DayZ servers). My bad for being unclear in my post.

 

 

 

1) They are NOT insisting on following the current methods. I dare you to find something supporting that claim. Just because they haven't finished the new systems doesn't mean they think the current ones are perfect.

 

3) Some people definitely will skip that. They are the same people that wouldn't listen to a single word spoken during an entire Famil Course. They are bad off either way. The only way to filter those before entering the server would be to test them mouth-to-mouth.

 

I hope I'm not being unclear!

 

It seems that there are some people here who are more concerned about not losing the new players who don't make any effort to learn than about losing the new players that do.

 

When I did my first famil course, we were told that most people on the primary won't bother with calling contacts or repeating orders even though that is what we were expected to do. Several students were surprised to find out that the course wasn't required. They simply assumed that if you want to play a game, you try to learn the rules beforehand. It is hard for new players to play by the rules when people who were around for much longer, don't.

Edited by Recondo

Share this post


Link to post

...

 

It seems that there are some people here who are more concerned about not losing the new players who don't make any effort to learn than about losing the new players that do....

 

That was I was saying. You are loosing "new"  players like Recondo. You are loosing old school players like Mongo, and you are loosing a large chunk of regulars, including myself if you are voting NO on this. That is a fact. 

 

 

 

 

P.S. Apologies Recondo if you are not that new, just needed an example.

Edited by Rambo2

Share this post


Link to post

And those PEOPLE will play, when you give them the enjoyable environment and rules to maintain that environment. If you don't people will play something else.

The enjoyable environment comes after the people though, not before. They already have the tools and avenues to remove problematic players from the server.

Share this post


Link to post

And those PEOPLE will play, when you give them the enjoyable environment and rules to maintain that environment. If you don't people will play something else.

I agree with this; refer to my previous post. We have a solution to this problem we're trying to fix with BoE; let's try that first IMO.

Share this post


Link to post

1) That begs the question as to why they keep insisting on following the current methods, but that discussion most likely does not belong in this thread.

2) Agreed. Now, how do you think you can avoid such mistakes and/or game disruptive behaviour more efficiently, by testing people and then granting them access, or by giving them access without any sort of serious, live test (other than a quizz) and then live-testing them on the Primary?

3) lol you really think everyone will sit and read through a guide when there's no adecuate system in place to check whether they're ready for playing or not (because, let's face it, the 'threat' of being asked to read through a guide again is not really that threatening).

 

1) You have completely missed the point about people being FORCED into courses not wanting to learn, which is what YOU are suggesting and which DOES NOT happen now.

2) United Operations is an Open Community, if we force people to go through basic training or something as long as a Familiarisation course we will no longer be an open community and large amounts of the appeal of UO will be lost, with this, they can do stuff while their mods are downloading.

3) Everyone? No. More people than do currently? Yes. I think publicising the existence of guides and creating the idea in people that we are playing a MilSim game will help a lot more people know about the basic stuff, that they otherwise might miss (and many who currently play on the server lack, usually without even knowing it).

Share this post


Link to post

Those who say its people first, I would think at this point in the game it would be demonstrated that just having regulars play is not the solution.  I used to advocate people playing on primary, it does help, but as someone who used to spend a LOT of time on primary and was the first GM dealing with people and issues, I can tell you the toll it takes is tremendous.  Yes quality improves, but that is usually because those who are experienced spend time to teach the new people the basics.  Yet there is a constant churn of new people who need to be taught the basics over and over again.  There are only so many times you can squad lead and have to re-explain a formation, or pulling security or movement.  These are simple basic tools that everyone should know, and if everyone who is playing DOES know them, it allows us to impart a much more tactical mind set.

 

Long story short, I don't have the time or energy to teach new people / unteach all the new people who learned from other new people who didnt have a clue.  I would play a lot if I didnt feel like logging in was going to be a case of herding blind cats.   And I would feel like I could really improve things if I have the option to remove people who have no idea what they are doing and send them back to school, which then leaves me time to deal with all the derps and retards who infest the server.

Share this post


Link to post

I have been playing about 3-4 days consecutively now and what I see is a gameplay so S***. The sad part is that I was one of the most active regulars on the server, but now when you play day and day after and you see that it is only getting worse, who is sane enough to care? The saddest part about this whole episode is, that those regulars that are voted in based on helping the community evolve, you guys are the ones hindering any sort of change, at all. 

 

I was going to make a small montage of all the S*** gameplay I witnessed in the last 3-4 days, but the amount of care bear in me is at all time low.

I have played every week this whole summer, a lot of the time during the very late nights and early mornings for Americans and I've never experienced gameplay that was so shit that it made me want to stop playing. I seriously question what sort of unbelievable standards you're expecting?

 

Regulars with differing opinions =/= hindering change

 

I hate to tell you but not everyone agrees with you, or your idea of proper gameplay, or your ideas on how to fix problems. Grow up.

 

To recap, I will play a hell lot less if this amendment doesn't pass, that is a fact.

Thanks for being a responsible regular and trying to hostage off your playtime for votes. Mine as well resign.

Edited by Dylan

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...