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

Your graph is terrible Kevin. The independent variable should always be placed on the X axis.

Lets look back at the graph, shall we?

 

Its a shitty diagram, I know. But I hope it gets the point across.

 

 

I made it in 15 seconds. Sorry its not 100% perfect.

Share this post


Link to post

Im pretty sure that graph is saying the quality of play is increasing as regulars decrease.

Share this post


Link to post

Im pretty sure that graph is saying the quality of play is increasing as regulars decrease.

As more regulars come, the quality increases. 

Share this post


Link to post

Well then the graph needs a positive slope not a negative one.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think that anyone here is suggesting that having an influx of regulars on the server will have anything but a positive effect. However the number of regulars on the server is not the issue under consideration. While and argument could be made that regulars will be more likely to play if this change is enacted that is compleatly auxiliary to the actual issue.

 

The issue here is a simple change of the charter that allows us to hold players on the server to a minimum standard of basic competency. The method by which those standards are defined and the remediation required when someone fails to meet those standards have been clearly laid out. Now if somone can present a clear, consistant and coherent argument why we should not enact this change that would be grounds for voting no. So far that has not happened.

 

Saying that regulars should cry less and play more isn't a valid rebuttal to this proposal nor is it a sound alternative. Compulsory play time for regularship would be a valid alternative since it has a mechanism to impact the sever but you will be hard pressed to find support for that idea.

 

Overall this proposal is a low cost way of ensuring that the most minimal of all standards are met. I ask anyone voting no to please provide a valid rebuttal to the tabled motion. If you cannot I urge you to reconsider.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think that anyone here is suggesting that having an influx of regulars on the server will have anything but a positive effect. However the number of regulars on the server is not the issue under consideration. While and argument could be made that regulars will be more likely to play if this change is enacted that is compleatly auxiliary to the actual issue.

 

The issue here is a simple change of the charter that allows us to hold players on the server to a minimum standard of basic competency. The method by which those standards are defined and the remediation required when someone fails to meet those standards have been clearly laid out. Now if somone can present a clear, consistant and coherent argument why we should not enact this change that would be grounds for voting no. So far that has not happened.

 

Saying that regulars should cry less and play more isn't a valid rebuttal to this proposal nor is it a sound alternative. Compulsory play time for regularship would be a valid alternative since it has a mechanism to impact the sever but you will be hard pressed to find support for that idea.

 

Overall this proposal is a low cost way of ensuring that the most minimal of all standards are met. I ask anyone voting no to please provide a valid rebuttal to the tabled motion. If you cannot I urge you to reconsider.

 

I agree, this change in the charter has never been about having more Regulars on the Primary.  That is hopefully the outcome but no the intent.  But it is not the issue at hand here.  It is about getting a set of standards of gameplay for the server which people will equate to playing on Tac Tues. 

 

Tac Tues is not successful because there are more regulars on, its successful because people care enough to make it successful.  Sure us Regulars have a vested interest in quality game play here but don't we all?  So here is the challenge for all of you non-regulars out there, take your game up a notch or two.  But until you do we need a system in place to that will make this a desirable place to play, for us all.

 

Some will say that this can not succeed unless there are Regulars on to monitor it.  But that is not true.  When ever I look at the server sure there are new faces, but there are always some old ones too.  There will always be people here that know what should be happening, and the KSA's people should know. So to say that this system can not be monitored with out Regulars on the primary is pure baloney.

 

Please think this over. 

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think that anyone here is suggesting that having an influx of regulars on the server will have anything but a positive effect. However the number of regulars on the server is not the issue under consideration. While and argument could be made that regulars will be more likely to play if this change is enacted that is compleatly auxiliary to the actual issue.

 

The issue here is a simple change of the charter that allows us to hold players on the server to a minimum standard of basic competency. The method by which those standards are defined and the remediation required when someone fails to meet those standards have been clearly laid out. Now if somone can present a clear, consistant and coherent argument why we should not enact this change that would be grounds for voting no. So far that has not happened.

 

Saying that regulars should cry less and play more isn't a valid rebuttal to this proposal nor is it a sound alternative. Compulsory play time for regularship would be a valid alternative since it has a mechanism to impact the sever but you will be hard pressed to find support for that idea.

 

Overall this proposal is a low cost way of ensuring that the most minimal of all standards are met. I ask anyone voting no to please provide a valid rebuttal to the tabled motion. If you cannot I urge you to reconsider.

 

That's exactly what this is about; people want to instate this change to improve the game play of the server, so older players and more tactical focused members of this community will have a more enjoyable environment and increase actitivy.

 

 

I agree, this change in the charter has never been about having more Regulars on the Primary.  That is hopefully the outcome but no the intent.  But it is not the issue at hand here.  It is about getting a set of standards of gameplay for the server which people will equate to playing on Tac Tues. 

 

Tac Tues is not successful because there are more regulars on, its successful because people care enough to make it successful.  Sure us Regulars have a vested interest in quality game play here but don't we all?  So here is the challenge for all of you non-regulars out there, take your game up a notch or two.  But until you do we need a system in place to that will make this a desirable place to play, for us all.

 

Some will say that this can not succeed unless there are Regulars on to monitor it.  But that is not true.  When ever I look at the server sure there are new faces, but there are always some old ones too.  There will always be people here that know what should be happening, and the KSA's people should know. So to say that this system can not be monitored with out Regulars on the primary is pure baloney.

 

Please think this over. 

 

Your posts thus far are driving me crazy man. Your thought process confuses me beyond belief.

 

Tac Tues is not successful because there are more regulars on, its successful because people care enough to make it successful.  Sure us Regulars have a vested interest in quality game play here but don't we all?  So here is the challenge for all of you non-regulars out there, take your game up a notch or two.  But until you do we need a system in place to that will make this a desirable place to play, for us all.

 

Are you kidding me? How often to you play on Tact Tues? Tact Tues is absolutely successful based on the amount of regulars involved; and the roles chosen. Today (8/20) There was a much smaller showing of regulars and I can tell you from experience It didn't go as well as it normally does, numerous people had to be disciplined and spoon fed over and over. This isn't a utopia day where everyone comes out of the woodwork and is ready to be the best they can be. There are numerous mediocre players in the mix, and with proper leadership they shine; without they stay at the same mediocre level and bring the rest of the platoon down with them. Who on earth do you think these magical 'people' are that make it successful? I have a hint.. starts with an R. I'm confused beyond belief at this statement.

 

Some will say that this can not succeed unless there are Regulars on to monitor it.  But that is not true.  When ever I look at the server sure there are new faces, but there are always some old ones too.  There will always be people here that know what should be happening, and the KSA's people should know. So to say that this system can not be monitored with out Regulars on the primary is pure baloney.

 

No, this is baloney. Most non regs will not go out of there way to enforce this. This cannot succeed without like minded individuals to enforce it.  As much as you may want this to be the case, that is not the reality.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm sorry but this has nothing to do with the number of regulars on the server. The issue is simply should we have a minimum standard that would constitute a barrier to entry, anything else is an argument of relative privation.

 

It seems to me that you support the ideal but you will vote no because you think it will probebly fail. That alone is not justification to not proceed. If you have substantive concerns please address them. If the measure passes and the execution fails then nothing changes however if it has the potential to do good then oposing it costs you nothing but has the potential to make the community stronger. Just believing it is unlikely to work is not sufficed justification to not try in this case.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm sorry but this has nothing to do with the number of regulars on the server. The issue is simply should we have a minimum standard that would constitute a barrier to entry, anything else is an argument of relative privation.

 

It seems to me that you support the ideal but you will vote no because you think it will probebly fail. That alone is not justification to not proceed. If you have substantive concerns please address them. If the measure passes and the execution fails then nothing changes however if it has the potential to do good then oposing it costs you nothing but has the potential to make the community stronger. Just believing it is unlikely to work is not sufficed justification to not try in this case.

 

I've addressed my concern, it's yet to get a reply. I vote 'no' for my reason stated prior. J.B. seemed to be the only person to see it, but didn't have time to reply.

Share this post


Link to post

I voted yes but I still stand by my previous post about regular presence. The intent of it was to spur the regularship who I'm certain will be upset at the failure of this poll to do something besides whine, point fingers, or resign. I find it absurd that some are taking personal insult at each no vote.

Share this post


Link to post

Some will say that this can not succeed unless there are Regulars on to monitor it.  But that is not true.  When ever I look at the server sure there are new faces, but there are always some old ones too.  There will always be people here that know what should be happening, and the KSA's people should know. So to say that this system can not be monitored with out Regulars on the primary is pure baloney.

 

Like Gabe said, non-regulars have tried to police the server, and we have failed. I personally have tried, and failed. A user told me, to my face, to " go fuck myself ", and it slid right by, because the word of a non-regular is, apparently, not evidence enough. It has been proven that if at least 2 other witnesses do not step forward, the ban is dropped, and incredibly toxic behavior is allowed to continue. I seriously doubt a regular would have to go hunting for witnesses to get such disgusting behavior dealt with.

 

So, yes, it is for the most part on the shoulders of regulars, because you will not lend non-regulars your ear. Ball's in your court, guys. I tried to play and had my teeth knocked out.

Share this post


Link to post

At any time no matter who's own we should expect to be able to get on the server and it not to be shit.  --- You cannot expect this from an open community, anyone can come on. Without proper monitoring the server can fall into anyone's hands and anything can happen.

This is exactly what we can expect. However without striving for that goal it is unreachable. People affect eachother. If we put a system into place that allows to enforce a minimum standard of competency, and if we do enforce that minimum standard, then that standard will spread. However if we have no expectations on new members then they'll never live up to that, and in turn will not expect anything of their peers.

 

When we make people expect a certain standard to be held and make them think it natural to do something about people not living up to that standard, then the server will to a large degree be self-improving.

 

All beings with any social competency adapt to their surroundings. If the surroundings have an expectation of a certain behaviour, than that will become the norm. However the bar is very, very low at the moment.

 

 

Is it too much to ask that we all treat every day as if it was TacTues?  --- Yes, yes it is. So, let's not allow anyone who isn't known enough to be able to lead squads, and only regulars can lead missions every day of the week... wait.. isn't that something, huh ... only regulars can lead on Tac Tues. Now, don't misinterpret me here as I have no problem with this seeing as it only happens on Tuesday, but isn't this telling you something? Regulars are required for the kind of gameplay quality we get on Tac Tuesday. Only regulars can lead, and trustworthy, reliable, competent guests can be in leadership or mission-critical roles; this is not the case any other day of the week.

Do you not think it would be easier for moderately/less competent leaders to learn to lead if they actually could focus on the leading rather than also having to babysit their squad or suffer the consequences of terrifying incompetence among his subordinates? It is a daunting task to lead, and definitely even more daunting when people under you have no idea what they are doing. It is demanding enough to keep track of radio traffic and the situation at hand even if people do what they should. It is near impossible even for experienced squad leaders when people have no idea what they are doing or should be doing.

 

 

Simply put: Low expectations of competency breeds low competency. And I see a lot of people here expecting everyone to be bad and dumb and needing someone to hold their hand all the way.

 

 

 

Edit:

 

Like Gabe said, non-regulars have tried to police the server, and we have failed. I personally have tried, and failed. A user told me, to my face, to " go fuck myself ", and it slid right by, because the word of a non-regular is, apparently, not evidence enough. It has been proven that if at least 2 other witnesses do not step forward, the ban is dropped, and incredibly toxic behavior is allowed to continue. I seriously doubt a regular would have to go hunting for witnesses to get such disgusting behavior dealt with.

 

So, yes, it is for the most part on the shoulders of regulars, because you will not lend non-regulars your ear. Ball's in your court, guys. I tried to play and had my teeth knocked out.

This is quite darn tragic I must say. Would love some more info on that if you'd PM me some. There's no hope what so ever to fix the situation if we can't put trust in non-regs to police the server.

Edited by Inkompetent

Share this post


Link to post

Are you fucking kidding me? Regulars are the people who aren't shit, don't pick fights and want to vote. Gee I wonder how those outside this group could possible have a harder time making it work.

I believe that is an insult to non-regulars and if this is the way regulars think of non-regulars than I don't think I will return when I have the time for it (not that anyone will care, but that's not my problem).

Regulars do have a higher standard (or they are atleast supposed to, which I doubt sometimes) than non-regs but that is for a reason.

The average skill will indeed be higher among regulars than non-regs but generalizing (sp?) the entire non-reg population is just plain stupid and honestly I do have little patience with such stupid comments.

 

edit: Honestly I didn't expect such a comment from you Mark.

Edited by enforcer

Share this post


Link to post

I believe that is an insult to non-regulars and if this is the way regulars think of non-regulars than I don't think I will return when I have the time for it (not that anyone will care, but that's not my problem).

Regulars do have a higher standard (or they are atleast supposed to, which I doubt sometimes) than non-regs but that is for a reason.

The average skill will indeed be higher among regulars than non-regs but generalizing (sp?) the entire non-reg population is just plain stupid and honestly I do have little patience with such stupid comments.

 

edit: Honestly I didn't expect such a comment from you Mark.

 

Quit it with the histrionics. He's not saying that non-regular members necessarily cannot be those things, he's saying that regular members necessarily have to be those things (or are supposed to be). Regulars are supposed to uphold those ideals; the same is not necessarily expected of non-regular members.

 

He's making the point that regulars cannot expect those kinds of things to not happen when they are not regularly patrolling the server, setting an example, and actively promoting a higher standard of gameplay.

Edited by SealHammer

Share this post


Link to post

I disagree with Mark's statement and I am a Regular, how about that Sealhammer?

Congrats, you have an opinion. Throw a party.

Share this post


Link to post

This is an important step for UO but I think in many ways it's already too late.  I feel like given the number of 'inexperienced' players who are 'bringing the level of play on the server down' there has been a sharp reaction from other members in the opposite direction - experienced players who tolerate nothing less than tactical genius and suffering no fools or mistakes whatsoever.  

 

Recent ban threads have concerned me in this regard - banning for misfiring an RPG (no mention if it actually affected anything), banning for crashing an airplane on takeoff (which in the past would have simply warranted a 'don't pilot again for a while' comment), ban for crashing a helicopter by accident, banning someone for saying 'Frag out' when he didn't actually throw a frag; these are just the last two weeks.  

 

Now I believe that this barrier to entry is important for two reasons:

 

1. New guys can learn to avoid some of these issues

2. Older, more experienced guys might consider backing off and allowing for genuine mistakes rather than having a zero tolerance rule towards even mundane infractions.

Share this post


Link to post

Congrats, you have an opinion. Throw a party.

We will agree to disagree. How much did you pay for that Mozart tag?

Share this post


Link to post

This is an important step for UO but I think in many ways it's already too late.  I feel like given the number of 'inexperienced' players who are 'bringing the level of play on the server down' there has been a sharp reaction from other members in the opposite direction - experienced players who tolerate nothing less than tactical genius and suffering no fools or mistakes whatsoever.  

 

Recent ban threads have concerned me in this regard - banning for misfiring an RPG (no mention if it actually affected anything), banning for crashing an airplane on takeoff (which in the past would have simply warranted a 'don't pilot again for a while' comment), ban for crashing a helicopter by accident, banning someone for saying 'Frag out' when he didn't actually throw a frag; these are just the last two weeks.  

Upon further investigation you will notice that those who are against this proposal are the same people have have issued these bans. What does that tell you?

Share this post


Link to post

Recent ban threads have concerned me in this regard - banning for misfiring an RPG (no mention if it actually affected anything)

Just addressing this, as I'm assuming you went and looked at the immediate bans. The RPG was requested to be pushed by Dylan, whom I'm pretty sure is not expecting tactical genius from anyone, and it fucked the mission for everyone on the server.

Share this post


Link to post

I believe that is an insult to non-regulars and if this is the way regulars think of non-regulars than I don't think I will return when I have the time for it (not that anyone will care, but that's not my problem).

Regulars do have a higher standard (or they are atleast supposed to, which I doubt sometimes) than non-regs but that is for a reason.

The average skill will indeed be higher among regulars than non-regs but generalizing (sp?) the entire non-reg population is just plain stupid and honestly I do have little patience with such stupid comments.

 

edit: Honestly I didn't expect such a comment from you Mark.

Whether you put yourself in the group that are shit, pick fights or simply don't care to vote is up to you. It is by no means a generalization to say that all non-regs are one or more.

(Add a temporary group for regular aspirants if you must.)

 

We have plenty of non-regs that are simply not too bother with voting, Scope and AC are prolific long term non-regs despite being lovely to play with.

If you find this insulting it suggests that you do care about voting and thusly find me damning you to the other two categories, to which I can only say apply for regularship.

If you get a very, very quiet thread with overwhelming no votes, you have your answer.

Share this post


Link to post

Whether you put yourself in the group that are shit, pick fights or simply don't care to vote is up to you. It is by no means a generalization to say that all non-regs are one or more.

(Add a temporary group for regular aspirants if you must.)

 

We have plenty of non-regs that are simply not too bother with voting, Scope and AC are prolific long term non-regs despite being lovely to play with.

If you find this insulting it suggests that you do care about voting and thusly find me damning you to the other two categories, to which I can only say apply for regularship.

If you get a very, very quiet thread with overwhelming no votes, you have your answer.

Alright then to me it sounded that you blamed all non-regs.

Apologies for my comment.

 

As to your comment about regularship;

Yes I would like to vote and be more involved in UO.

But I know my regular poll won't pass and you and all other regulars know that aswell.

Maybe people just don't like me but apart from that reason I can come up with enough reasons why I never put up a poll.

 

Quit it with the histrionics. He's not saying that non-regular members necessarily cannot be those things, he's saying that regular members necessarily have to be those things (or are supposed to be). Regulars are supposed to uphold those ideals; the same is not necessarily expected of non-regular members.

 

He's making the point that regulars cannot expect those kinds of things to not happen when they are not regularly patrolling the server, setting an example, and actively promoting a higher standard of gameplay.

 

No histrionics involved. If I say something a certain way it is because I want it to come across that way.

I am not the guy to put hidden messages in a sentence or to put up meaningless threats because things don't go my way.

Share this post


Link to post

Do you not think it would be easier for moderately/less competent leaders to learn to lead if they actually could focus on the leading rather than also having to babysit their squad or suffer the consequences of terrifying incompetence among his subordinates? It is a daunting task to lead, and definitely even more daunting when people under you have no idea what they are doing. It is demanding enough to keep track of radio traffic and the situation at hand even if people do what they should. It is near impossible even for experienced squad leaders when people have no idea what they are doing or should be doing.

 

 

Simply put: Low expectations of competency breeds low competency. And I see a lot of people here expecting everyone to be bad and dumb and needing someone to hold their hand all the way.

Maybe you misunderstood my post, or I am misunderstanding you, but I do not feel this satisfies a reply to what I said. I was saying that on Tactical Tuesday, only competent, known users may be in leadership and only regulars can be CO or PL's (assuming a company sized mission). This is what leads to the high-quality game play. Any other day of the week, anyone can take any slot, assuming they are not black-listed. I am not saying that an SL would have zero issues with his subordinates just because he is a regular or a competent non-regular. However, what I am saying is that in my many experiences, competent leadership has a direct correlation to the quality of play. This does not mean that subordinates will be competent, but they will better learn through the example of their leaders, where as on some other day of the week they may take example from someone who has no idea what they are doing.

 

With the current proposition, my main concern remains: when no regulars are on to witness when someone displays a lack of knowledge required by the tactical guide/KSAs, how is it confirmed that said user truly did not know what he was doing? I see it going down like today's ban threads; Word against word, ending with the ban being lifted or reduced, and just causing people to get angry over a small dilemma.

 

The KSAs tactical guide is a nice idea, but I would prefer to see the 'ban' concept completely removed.

Share this post


Link to post

The KSAs tactical guide is a nice idea, but I would prefer to see the 'ban' concept completely removed.

 

But it won't jump straight to a ban, if someone is DELIBERATELY not trying to improve then they are deliberately lowering the quality of play on the server and are therefore a bad influence that should be removed.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...