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

I've noticed people occasionally mentioning that some non regulars don't have any of the UOTC courses etc. I am one of those people, I'm 29 years old, ex-RAF, married and have a stressful job. When I come online or boot up the old computer of an evening I do so to have fun and I don't want to spend 90 minutes to two hours of my evening learning what I consider to be the basics of ARMA. However as a mature, responsible player what I did do was jump onto the UO You tube channel and watch the various videos which deal with Radios, ACE and so forth to make sure I didn't come on and run around like a headless chicken. 

 

Equally when I want to work out how to use Mortars or arty or something I will watch the video's then play around with the kit offline. It means I can learn the skills needed to fit into the UO gameplay without needing to sit through an interesting, but time consuming course.

And this is exactly why we don't let UOTC tags decide who is allowed to do what. For some people the tags are marks of pride: They have worked for them and really know their stuff. Others just see them as Xbox Live achievements where the ones with the most tags wins, but haven't absorbed almost anything at all from the courses.

 

Without a system of annual qualification or something where a player has to show that he knows the contents of a course tags are nothing more than rough and generalized guidelines, and it is peoples' actual competency that's important, no matter how they have gained it.

 

That kind of responsibility is exactly what this BoE wants to encourage indirectly. By discouraging the irresponsible we let the responsible ones remain, and have much higher hopes of achieving a good quality of play 24 hours a day, and not only during some arbitrary "prime time" defined by when most EU and US players are online, and before it's too late in the evening in USA.

 

 

General tip people: If you are too tired to play ArmA2 seriously at UO, go play on another server. We don't want you here. You are killing what UO is about.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes I do.  Its not hard to tell the state of the server by just listening to what people are talking about, the way they are communicating, how they are calling out contacts, etc.  Chief's been around to know this.

 

To answer your earlier question, do I play Tac Tues.  No I don't, I am busy running a company at the time when Tac Tues is on.  I have contractual obligations to meet, deadlines that require results, payrolls to be met so families can put food on their tables.  These are things that may seem foreign to some of our younger crowds.  So after a 12 hour work day  is it hard to ask, that when i get on the server that their be a level of minimum expectations? 

 

Right now there is no bar set, no minimum expectations.  Right now any bar would do and I think this will set that bar. If at a latter point we want to move that bar a notch up or down we can. 

 

That is why I have voted Yes.

 

Well I respect what you do and all, you're not the only one who has a job. I've done my fair share of 70-80 hour work weeks to meet major deadlines as well. At the end of the day most all of us have responsibilities out of this game. I'm confused at why you felt the need to make those remarks on what makes Tac Tues run smooth when you yourself are unable to attend. You have little no experience with TT due to your restraints to make those claims in the first place.

 

As far as there being minimum expectations.. those exist now, and it's up to us to enforce and make sure  those rules are followed. BoE won't magically make everyone a spec ops commando when you log on my friend, far from it. It will simply strong arm the idiots into shaping up, assuming the bans aren't over exerted, which I also think may become a problem. Again, I'm not against BoE; Only reason I vote no is because of my previous concerns which are still yet to be addressed.

Edited by Darkside

Share this post


Link to post

How do we continue to make United Operations a better community?

 

This is at the heart of everything I try to do here -- from leading missions, to teaching new players, to kicking or even banning people intent on ruining the fun of the majority. And I like to think that it's also what everyone else here is campaigning for. We all want a better community.

 

I think it goes without saying that a community focused around a core group of games is better when the level of gameplay in those games is particularly notable. We walk away with better war stories, higher adrenaline rushes, and better comrades when everyone is doing their very best.

 

Other communities, like ShackTac, have chosen to be very selective about who they allow into their ranks to accomplish these high standards. United Operations has chosen to remain an open community, free to anyone who agrees to and abides by our rules.

 

 

I would like to pause the discussion here and remind everyone that this charter amendment is much more a symbolic change than a hard one. Many members are arguing that it will not change the nature of our community. Many members are arguing that it will not change the way or the reasons for which we remove people from our community. And while these members are definitely correct, I must stress the symbolic effect of this amendment.

 

At this time, United Operations has no expectations, bar the reading and acknowledging of our rules, as to the basic competency of new players. We have, with open arms, accepted everyone who's ever wanted to play here with a pat on the back and "play nice". This amendment would symbolically change our welcome message to a pat on the back, "play nice, and read this before you hop on for the first time".

 

United Operations is a wonderful hub, for many gamers from many places, playing now many different games. What we need to ask ourselves, as a community, is fairly simple, and it's the same question that this amendment symbolically asks of us: do we continue to be a hub for everyone, no questions asked, or do we evolve to become a community that leans towards a tactical, "serious fun" ethic? The nit-picking over when/if Regulars need to be present, the quality of the server at this time, or what timezone you're a part of, is irrelevant in this grand schema.

 

 

So UO, what'll it be? Do we finally admit to ourselves that we are a community focused on gameplay with a base amount of expectations, a high level of play and a willingness to remove people who are not of our same mindset? Or do we remain as we are, a hub for everyone who'd like to come and follow our rules?

Share this post


Link to post

I think that there's a number of people and perhaps a large number of the people currently voting no on this amendment who seriously support a minimum standard of play on the server. However they believe for whatever reason that this particular motion is lacking in one or more qualities that  in their eyes make it untenable. However I urge them to consider the alternative to this amendment passing, we will talk for weeks more and nothing will change. By trusting the people who plan to implement this amendment and giving them a chance to make this community there is the potential for some substantive progress. A good plan now is better than a perfect plan later. This is a good plan and we've waited long enough it's time to take action. 

Share this post


Link to post

Only reason I vote no is because of my previous concerns which are still yet to be addressed.

 

 

What concerns? The only concern I've seen you raise is about the amount of regulars playing on the server. I've read your posts and still fail to find any concerns. Please list them so they can be addressed, copy and paste them for all I care. Stop evoking these ethereal concerns that nobody can find. 

Edited by Falcon

Share this post


Link to post

at around 2400Z,

 

hate to break it to you but 2400 doesn't exist, should be 000z or 0000z. Anyway, enough pedanticness. 

 

Darkside - I have to agree with Falcon, I have found your stance very confusing as you mostly seem in favour, yet have voted no :S

Share this post


Link to post

You believe him over someone actually playing? The bias seems legit. Why should it be okay? Because us as regulars have allowed 'night time' to be accepted as herp derp hours, and no one has made a huge effort to deter from that particular mindset.

 

Ahn, what? 

 

A ton of my play time was on Euro early mornings, which is roughly USA "night time derp" and kalohe's prime time. I've put *a ton* of effort trying to get things better for those hours, and even before becoming a regular I was already posting bans for what I thought was not acceptable behaviour. After I got regularship, you can see by the member review threads the countless "talks" I had with many players who disturbed the enjoyment of others at these hours. I tried to lead by example, to admin the server as often as I could, and so on.

 

If you think I'm an idiot and missed the target on every effort I've made, fear not: I'm witness of the effort of many others, including kalohe and also the likes of Ruben, Kazu, Zeko to some extent, and quite a few other euro players that would hop on earlyish in the morning and hit the USA late night wall of derp - always justified by the "but it's late night" motto. For what I think is almost one year Kalohe has been screaming back "but this is prime time for me!". 

 

Why should we give so much importance to just one grumpy Hawaiian trying to play serious Arma? We shouldn't. But we should realize that there is are whole timezones there. When I first came here I used to play my mornings with lots of Aussie guys. Good guys, they knew their shit. Bit by bit, they started playing on the alternate server to avoid the primary's madness at those hours - which, again, was their "prime time". Then one by one, they started to just leave UO. And I can't blame them. I've talked to a few of them, and their saying was always the same: "Sorry man, can't take this shit any more". So we lost a whole group of excellent players from across the globe to cater for some pubbies who play late at night and couldn't care less for anything that UO is or stands for.

 

So, it's not a matter of numbers. It's not a matter of not doing anything about it not to lose players because we will discourage noobs. It's about what kind of noobs and other players we want to cater for. We will lose players regardless but we need to choose which ones we're going to lose - the ones that do care for a good playing atmosphere or the ones who don't.

 

Lastly, without proposals like this one, what did my effort and those of other people like the ones I've cited amounted to? Not much. We'd ban the same guys repeatedly, I've spend countless hours trying to talk them instead of banning, and all for nothing because they didn't care. Of course, once they picked up a vehicle or something like that I could ban them. Same for ramboing, which happened all the time. What else? When they just didn't care enough to do anything proper, not much you can do. Granted, I could play the dick card and shout "peel right!". No one will do anything at all, then I ban my whole squad for not following to instructions? That's a bit too dickish even for me, and if anything would put off new (green) players that would be it.

 

So no, we need something to address particularly those guys who don't want to learn anything and generally don't care to do anything right. As someone who has put tons of effort and countless hours towards bettering the level of play on the server, I'm pretty confident it is needed. And if regular presence would solve anything, my presence, that of the regulars who were always present at USA late nights would have solved it. But it didn't, and the same thing keeps happening: we loose the good players, many regulars burn out or give up, and the same toxic attitude is still there if you log onto the primary.

 

tl;dr: I've put tons of effort in many ways, which is all documented, and have witnessed many others do the same. No result. We do need something to address particularly the problem-players who don't care for learning nor for proper gameplay, else it's just a huge waste of time and we'll keep losing the good players to cater for the bad ones.

Share this post


Link to post

What concerns? The only concern I've seen you raise is about the amount of regulars playing on the server. I've read your posts and still fail to find any concerns. Please list them so they can be addressed, copy and paste them for all I care. Stop evoking these ethereal concerns that nobody can find.

 

How can nobody find them? J.B. replied just fine. I state again, I am interested very much in this proposal; however I am worried the cost might take a toll on new players integrating into our community. I echoed Zzez a few days ago; I don't think the cost would be worth it if it detracts a large amount of new players.

 

 

 

Ahn, what? 

 

A ton of my play time was on Euro early mornings, which is roughly USA "night time derp" and kalohe's prime time. I've put *a ton* of effort trying to get things better for those hours, and even before becoming a regular I was already posting bans for what I thought was not acceptable behaviour. After I got regularship, you can see by the member review threads the countless "talks" I had with many players who disturbed the enjoyment of others at these hours. I tried to lead by example, to admin the server as often as I could, and so on.

 

If you think I'm an idiot and missed the target on every effort I've made, fear not: I'm witness of the effort of many others, including kalohe and also the likes of Ruben, Kazu, Zeko to some extent, and quite a few other euro players that would hop on earlyish in the morning and hit the USA late night wall of derp - always justified by the "but it's late night" motto. For what I think is almost one year Kalohe has been screaming back "but this is prime time for me!". 

 

Why should we give so much importance to just one grumpy Hawaiian trying to play serious Arma? We shouldn't. But we should realize that there is are whole timezones there. When I first came here I used to play my mornings with lots of Aussie guys. Good guys, they knew their shit. Bit by bit, they started playing on the alternate server to avoid the primary's madness at those hours - which, again, was their "prime time". Then one by one, they started to just leave UO. And I can't blame them. I've talked to a few of them, and their saying was always the same: "Sorry man, can't take this shit any more". So we lost a whole group of excellent players from across the globe to cater for some pubbies who play late at night and couldn't care less for anything that UO is or stands for.

 

So, it's not a matter of numbers. It's not a matter of not doing anything about it not to lose players because we will discourage noobs. It's about what kind of noobs and other players we want to cater for. We will lose players regardless but we need to choose which ones we're going to lose - the ones that do care for a good playing atmosphere or the ones who don't.

 

Lastly, without proposals like this one, what did my effort and those of other people like the ones I've cited amounted to? Not much. We'd ban the same guys repeatedly, I've spend countless hours trying to talk them instead of banning, and all for nothing because they didn't care. Of course, once they picked up a vehicle or something like that I could ban them. Same for ramboing, which happened all the time. What else? When they just didn't care enough to do anything proper, not much you can do. Granted, I could play the dick card and shout "peel right!". No one will do anything at all, then I ban my whole squad for not following to instructions? That's a bit too dickish even for me, and if anything would put off new (green) players that would be it.

 

So no, we need something to address particularly those guys who don't want to learn anything and generally don't care to do anything right. As someone who has put tons of effort and countless hours towards bettering the level of play on the server, I'm pretty confident it is needed. And if regular presence would solve anything, my presence, that of the regulars who were always present at USA late nights would have solved it. But it didn't, and the same thing keeps happening: we loose the good players, many regulars burn out or give up, and the same toxic attitude is still there if you log onto the primary.

 

tl;dr: I've put tons of effort in many ways, which is all documented, and have witnessed many others do the same. No result. We do need something to address particularly the problem-players who don't care for learning nor for proper gameplay, else it's just a huge waste of time and we'll keep losing the good players to cater for the bad ones.

 

Luiz, I understand. My normal time used to be late at night; I used to play with you and Kalohe quite a bit. For a long time I made a huge effort myself to ensure night time had quality game play. I know you guys have made a difference.  I agree with your sentiments wholeheartedly and reaffirm that I am not opposed to this proposal.

 

 

 

I will be removing my no vote. I am still not swayed enough to vote yes though.

Share this post


Link to post

I had a proposal that might also help out with new people joining who have not had much training but want to learn. I was unsure about where or when to post this but I will put this here and perhaps it can be picked up on later. 

 

The one thing that people are worried about is that this would be an automatic block in one way or another to people joining at the wrong time who have some trouble understanding some basic concepts from literature and videos but want to learn. I suggested when chatting on TS that perhaps something that this could proposal could include is the idea of regular mentoring as a valid way of joining in on the server. There is already a culture of this among some regs and members. Basically this would be a voluntary scheme where a new player can come into the waiting room and declare that they are new. Depending on circumstances (number of players, if there is an event on etc...) A regular may mentor them during play with the proviso that failure to follow instructions will result in their eventual removal. Perhaps even a regular can ask another player to take them on. The main thing this is entirely voluntary and can be refused by anyone.

 

This can and does work. It will encourage regulars to take an interest in new players and I find it helps to ensure that new players get involved in the community. 

Share this post


Link to post

I like that suggestion a lot, Cunnah.

 

I was for example worried about actual involvement in Thawk's BoE-suggestion (although that also included non-Regs) because it formalized a commitment. A voluntary mentorship, although in danger of only being actively performed by a select number of people, would still make it easier to get into things and hopefully get a person better prepared.

 

A formalized framework/checklist for such a mentorship could also further aid that, since a person could read in all its simplicity what things are expected and as such what to ask about if not knowing it, together with the encouragement to ask for a mentor/help. If having a list of the primary items to learn it's quite easy for people with some knowledge/experience to see what they know and what they don't.

Share this post


Link to post

I hasten to add that this is a voluntary thing on the part of the mentor it is more that it is seen as a valid way to gain entry without all the required knowledge. For example I take bob under my wing and it can be understood that afterwards bob is considered to have at least demonstrated knowledge of the basics. The member review thread can be used by a regular to indicate this has happened if it needs to be more formal. My understanding however is that the formal channels would only be used when a lack knowledge is evident. The other channels would be preferable in order to maintain a standard but it should ease the pressure off the UOTC and enable more people to join.

Edited by Cunnah

Share this post


Link to post

How can nobody find them? J.B. replied just fine. I state again, I am interested very much in this proposal; however I am worried the cost might take a toll on new players integrating into our community. I echoed Zzez a few days ago; I don't think the cost would be worth it if it detracts a large amount of new players.

 

Yeah, I am worried about that as well. But I'm net letting my speculative worry of something that might or might not happen get on the way of praising an initiative. Maybe not the best, maybe not the miracle solution to all of world's problems, but it's what we have. If we worry too little we end up doing stupid things but if we worry too much we end up not doing anything at all. It's the "not doing anything" that bothers me the most.

 

We have already established that regular presence is not enough, albeit some people came really close to affirming that turning everyone who played late night into a regular would miraculously solve the problem. Which is hysterical, of course. We were there, and then we banned, and then we played, and then we were admins on the server, and then we talked to people, and then we supported UOTC more and more. I've watched all that for one year, and what have happened? 

 

Like I tried to say before, we don't have a tool to deal with problem players. The guy who doesn't care. I'd rather not blocking every new player from entering the server, but we need to have something to block the really bad screwups. We don't. People say one can ban for intentional disruption or for not listening to instructions. Yeah, right. 

 

You guys know of at least two examples in which I put contless hours of my time. Seriously, a shit ton. Two players that didn't care and did shit. So I had to ban them. And then ban them again. And again. 15 minutes, then 30, then 1 hour, then - God forbid! - 24 hours. At some point, these guys just learn how to dodge bans, but they keep being shit and turning gameplay into shit, and giving the worse possible example to the "new guys" you (and I) so want to protect.

 

After one year, several bans and countless hours of having talks to them and sending them warnings - guess what! They are still around. Still playing, still not caring. They don't have a single UOTC course, they think "not ramboing" is bullshit and that not stealing vehicles from base or from the enemy is role playing. But they've learnt how to do just enough to not get banned. And I mean, I still think they should get banned for what they do, but that opinion is not widely sharing because "banning is bad". But they still screw up, they still make game play a pain in the ass, they are still a horrible example to the newer and younger playerbase.

 

So that is damn frustrating. It's damn frustrating to know where a chunk of the problem lies, to know what needs to be done (get rid of said-individuals before they spread their shitty influence), but not being able to do it. Before, it couldn't be done because we lacked the means - or the instrument - to do it. So ok, we went with what we got, wasting time on "warnings" and 15 min. bans. But now it can't be done because we don't want the instrument to do it. Because we are saying "no" to an attempt to address this. All the work I've put, all the bans, the documenting screwups on review threads, all that is stupid because these individuals didn't change and will not change, and it's just stupid not to have means to address the problem that won't involve 6 moths or more of work! 

 

I'm glad you think we made a difference, Daskside, but if you think we'll be doing this forever... think again. I will not keep offering my time and effort for a community that rather see me work for 6 months instead of for 10 minutes to solve a problem. In this case, a problem player.

 

Of course, I'm addressing you and your position in particular here, because we have others that rather not see me on the server or trying to help. For them, the gameplay is fine and banning is always bad; UO should be just an open community for everyone to come around and do as they please, and if we happen to actually have a leader on a mission and people who listen to instructions, so much the better. I can't help but to feel sorry for that.

 

 

ps: Any regular wanting to know who these players are, just PM me. It shouldn't be too hard to know or find it though.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...