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

Krause' proposal does not interfere with UOTC doing what UOTC does best going forward into the future. Please re-read the poll and comprehend the suggestion proposed.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

If Joe Derp is a Grenadier and does not know how to aim or shoot the M203, that's an offense. If Joe Derp is an anti-tank gunner and doesn't know procedure for clearing backblast, or that his weapon generates backblast, that's an offense. Crystal?

Edited by Scope

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.

The barrier is that they must have a baseline skill in soldiering before joining the server. Removing them from the server is not punishment - no one will be banned unless they flagrantly refuse to adapt to a tactical environment. They must make "Repeat offenses" and refuse to learn the KSAs - not be merely ignorant.

 

For the record ShackTac has an identical requirement in their membership confirming to a tactical guide (reading TTP - a much larger document) and their community seems to do just fine.

 

It's a fallacy that our members, through this amendment, must know "ALL" their stuff, they must only know soldiering essentials. That's what Hellhound's guide covers, it's what Thawk's course covers and it's what is defined in the charter amendment. This isn't a "platoon ops" in disguise in which everyone must be at a professional soldier's level of competency, it's a simple requirement to be competent to the level of someone who can keep a wedge and not bunch around a wounded casualty.

 

Also keep in mind that all rules are enforced at the discretion of the administration (regulars, officers, GMs or a voted in member) - so there is leeway for enforcement. This amendment is written loosely enough to help inform a new level of play on the server but structured enough to assign accountability and clearly define the intended goal.

Edited by krause

Share this post


Link to post

I see this as something which would garner marginal improvement and between resistance from UOTC and myself wondering why you don't apply to become a UOTC officer if you want to set the agenda, I need you to sell it again.

We have several other departments making initiatives without charter amendments describing what, when and where.

Share this post


Link to post

I see this as something which would garner marginal improvement and between resistance from UOTC and myself wondering why you don't apply to become a UOTC officer if you want to set the agenda, I need you to sell it again.

We have several other departments making initiatives without charter amendments describing what, when and where.

This should be determined by the community, not an officer. I also want to be divorced from ownership of this concept - this is not my system; this is what i Think would be best at this time for the community to:

1. Provide a framework to move forward

2. Require minimal initial investments but support longterm, further developments

3. Clearly assign accountability and intention

4. Finally DO SOMETHING productive

Edited by krause

Share this post


Link to post

Alright but the active bit essentially boils down to a to-do list for UOTC, it's hardly a stretch to compare this with new laws that make things harder for public workers.

 

What sort of volumes are we talking? I assume the reason you put in the two strikes bit to serve as workload reduction.

New accounts per week, turnover rate, as well as estimates of the new player types would help inform the decision with regard to your proposal. (I realize this would mostly be theoretical.)

Perhaps Impulse can shed some light on the volumes of UO.

Share this post


Link to post

Alright but the active bit essentially boils down to a to-do list for UOTC, it's hardly a stretch to compare this with new laws that make things harder for public workers.

 

What sort of volumes are we talking? I assume the reason you put in the two strikes bit to serve as workload reduction.

New accounts per week, turnover rate, as well as estimates of the new player types would help inform the decision with regard to your proposal. (I realize this would mostly be theoretical.)

Perhaps Impulse can shed some light on the volumes of UO.

Why would these metrics matter? They currently don't matter for behavioral rules. No additional work is required to process new players under this amendment other than what is under "orders to offices" - it's a miniscule amount of work which should be expected to be completed within 2 weeks, or even 2 hours.

 

That's the point of this implementation: the additional effort is diverted to the players, NOT the staff. It's on the players to certify themselves, either by prior knowledge, self-study or attending a training. AND the training option by UOTC is an option ,not a requirement. To this point Thawk has testified that not only is the course essentially ready, but he has a roster of instructors ready. We already have a guide. The officers involved just need to exert leadership and take accountability -that's why we voted them in. We already have everything we need, we just need to "turn this on". The time for inaction and endless months of discussion has passed.

Edited by krause

Share this post


Link to post

Voting no.

 

The failure of this poll to not only explain and define the "tactical knowledge, skills, and abilities" that are needed by any member to posses but as well as the fact that the UOTC officers do not support this proposal has steered me in a clear direction. If this were to pass, the UOTC office will be able to ban members with impunity.

 

This is not a step in the right direction.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Krause' proposal does not interfere with UOTC doing what UOTC does best going forward into the future. Please re-read the poll and comprehend the suggestion proposed.

 

 

 

If Joe Derp is a Grenadier and does not know how to aim or shoot the M203, that's an offense. If Joe Derp is an anti-tank gunner and doesn't know procedure for clearing backblast, or that his weapon generates backblast, that's an offense. Crystal?

 

Right, but I fear some new guy will make a minor mistake of forgetting to clear his backblast in the heat of the moment, and be told off. People make many minor mistakes, even experienced players, and I don't want to bias opinions pop up when an experienced and well known/respected member (not regular) makes a mistake and doesn't have to go through the process proposed in the OP. Where as a newbie who no one knows will be told off instantly. This creates a gap where we I see new guys being thrown off the server for things they shouldn't be, and thus I feel a standard should be created to prevent such actions. With all that said, I do not, however, disagree with your "Joe Derp" examples. I think those are just the obvious ones, but as I mentioned above, I fear it will get out of hand.

 

TL;DR - This poll lacks information, regarding the standards to which an offense is issued, as well as documentation mentioned in the OP that is apparently incomplete. As Dylan said:

 

Voting no.

 

The failure of this poll to not only explain and define the "tactical knowledge, skills, and abilities" that are needed by any member to posses but as well as the fact that the UOTC officers do not support this proposal has steered me in a clear direction.

 

With this said, I retract my last post. I would vote no.

Edited by Gabee

Share this post


Link to post

I wouldn't vote for this until the requirements to avoid being arbitrarily shitcanned are actually defined.

Share this post


Link to post

As presented by this poll, I dislike the idea. Will elaborate more when I get home from work.

Share this post


Link to post

I fully support this.Doing nothing won't take us somewhere.This is labor of months that

you see.We already got people being singed up and interview for instructor role..

 

Solid yes.

Share this post


Link to post

The whole flowchart thing is not makIng sense.

 

Basically:

 

New people --> assessment uotc --> play --> offense --> assessment uotc --> repeat offense --> (perm) ban --> assessment uotc

 

The banning and monitoring offenses would be GSO and UOTC would be educating/assessing. Hence both parties need to agree with said changes. UOTC does not at this moment. Policy will fail.

 

If you want to do something, help UOTC.

Edited by Ruben

Share this post


Link to post

What is the "certain tactical knowledge, skills and abilities" that players are required to have or otherwise face bans/forced UOTC courses?the only pieces of concrete information that I see in HellHound's guide are knowledge about 3 fireteam formations and radio etiquette .

Share this post


Link to post

The idea I am perfectly okay with, and see great benefits in.  The implementation is what I'm iffy about.

 

 

I'll hold my vote until I talk to others about how this will be implemented, because I don't have to change a thing on my end; play Arma, don't be stupid.  I see obvious benefits and believe that a barrier of entry will raise the quality of play, but at a slight reduction of numbers.  I'm okay with that.  I want to see a game-plan, time table of implementation, the rest of the logistical details, and how it will be inscripted into the charter before I make a vote, because otherwise this is no different from the discussion thread.

Share this post


Link to post

I see lots of people asking what will be skills, abilities and knowledge.I believe that lesson play should be

amended so everyone got clear idea what will be taught.

Edited by enex

Share this post


Link to post

I'm a bit confused about the poll. We've been discussing this for weeks now and there was never so much as a peep from UOTC, and now when the poll is up they suddenly tell us that UOTC is unable to do what is asked of them in the poll?! Why didn't you mention this BEFORE the poll went up?

The course is pretty much ready, the instructors have singed up so let's get this thing rolling.

 

I'm still voting yes because I'm sick and tired of these endless discussions, we need to do this, and we need it now! I don't want to see this poll fail and then nothing happening for another six months.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm neutral for this, mainly because I've always thought of UO as a truly open community. I wouldn't have seen my self join if something like this was in place at the time. I however do see the benefits from this when it comes to increasing the standard of play. Maybe eliminating a lot of the ban traffic on the server.

Share this post


Link to post

 

If Joe Derp is a Grenadier and does not know how to aim or shoot the M203, that's an offense. If Joe Derp is an anti-tank gunner and doesn't know procedure for clearing backblast, or that his weapon generates backblast, that's an offense. Crystal?

 

Ah yes of course, we'll punish people for not knowing every minute detail of ACE, which has practically no readme to speak of and some of it is still heresy, as well as other slot functions that they have no practical way of learning outside of trail by fire and Domi-like missions. (Which come up rarely) Can't divine how to use the Javelin, which seems to bug out half the time anyway? You're not coming back until you take a Jav course!

 

... Which is why this sort of thing is about the basics and not something so dramatic, but still.

 

 

The barrier is that they must have a baseline skill in soldiering before joining the server. Removing them from the server is not punishment - no one will be banned unless they flagrantly refuse to adapt to a tactical environment. They must make "Repeat offenses" and refuse to learn the KSAs - not be merely ignorant.

 

For the record ShackTac has an identical requirement in their membership confirming to a tactical guide (reading TTP - a much larger document) and their community seems to do just fine.

 

It's a fallacy that our members, through this amendment, must know "ALL" their stuff, they must only know soldiering essentials. That's what Hellhound's guide covers, it's what Thawk's course covers and it's what is defined in the charter amendment. This isn't a "platoon ops" in disguise in which everyone must be at a professional soldier's level of competency, it's a simple requirement to be competent to the level of someone who can keep a wedge and not bunch around a wounded casualty.

 

Also keep in mind that all rules are enforced at the discretion of the administration (regulars, officers, GMs or a voted in member) - so there is leeway for enforcement. This amendment is written loosely enough to help inform a new level of play on the server but structured enough to assign accountability and clearly define the intended goal.

 

I can't commend to much on ShackTac, but I do get that. That said; this is a bit nebulious on the whole banning thing. Let's say Joe Newbie comes in, reads up on things but gets a little hazy on the details from the word salad because, you know, it's for a video game. He messes up a bit but troddles along, like most new people do already. If he messes up to much he gets a warning. He reads up on it, adjusts. He messes up again but for a different reason - I dunno, let's go with the "helpful" not-medic example you said. Now, as per ruling Joe Newbie, all confused and frazzled as shit goes down, ought to be banned! Obviously this isn't likely to happen, but as per the ruling and flow chart it ought to.

 

And again, that brings into question how robust the document that people need to know is. If it's super simplistic then yeah, people are going to trip over the details but there will be a minor bar for things, at least. If it's more complicated I think it will hurt confused newbies from trigger happy, "The old days were better!" people far more then it helps. (And, by the way, they really weren't.)

 

I don't think it will be that bad in practice, but it could be. And there is nothing really stopping it from being. And that's bad! Especially when it can be changed pretty much any time the UOTC officers feel like it, for more or less. To many things up in the air.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm a bit confused about the poll. We've been discussing this for weeks now and there was never so much as a peep from UOTC, and now when the poll is up they suddenly tell us that UOTC is unable to do what is asked of them in the poll?!

At no point did anyone associated with UOTC say we would be unable to perform this task. Please read through the entire post. Further, the issues we are addressing now were previously brought up in other discussions. Nothing we are saying here is an opinion we've not expressed before. In fact, in my post in this thread I quoted my post from the other thread...

Edited by Albatross

Share this post


Link to post

Right, you all know im not very good at this text kind of thing. But yet again this is a poll that directly effects a position i am in.

 

While i know UOTC's opinion on this and i am swaying towards a no.

id like the opportunity to chat in person Krause to clear up any confusion i may have.

 

Abstaining for now. 

Share this post


Link to post

Everyone wondering what KSAs are implied: read HellHound's guide. The stuff featured in that is the sort of stuff Krause is referring to.

 

Also, stop putting words into this amendment: it doesn't mean every fucking player is going to ban first and ask questions later about people not knowing every minute detail. Being able to remove people that refuse when asked to have a basic comprehension of how to act as an infantryman will make our gameplay experience more streamlined and enjoyable.  Doesn't mean you're going to see more bloody fucking bans put up.

 

 

 

Also, all you whingers about UOTC: if they don't do it, I bloody well will. The proof this amendment requires is so stupidly simple, I'm sure it can't be too hard to balance a 12 hour day and proof-reading a bunch of noob's written reports.

 

 

 

Basically I'm just super disappointed everyone's being so goddamn political about all of this. Not a single Reg stepped forward to say "I don't know what you're talking about, the level of play on the server is fine!", so we all have a problem with it. This is a simple, easy, uniform measure that requires zippo for man-hours and you can't sign off on it for nitpicky bullshit?

Edited by Scope

Share this post


Link to post

Strip away all the floweryness and the actual barrier to entry appears to be a 'yes I understand', similar to any terms and conditions this will be something that is not read at all.    I loved the original barrier to entry where there would be instructors actually teaching a short course, that is a barrier to entry.  This is little more than a nuisance and similar to every website that asks 'do you agree to these terms and conditions?'   Everyone will just lie and say yes without any foreseeable consequences which aren't currently in place.

Share this post


Link to post

Back from work, only had one person to bury today.

 

Anyways, my problems with this are similar to what everyone else is bringing up, but I will put it in my own words.

 

1) It's not actually a barrier to entry, it's just a "don't be an idiot" clause, which we already have, more or less. It seems like it will be as efficient as putting the server passwords under the server SOPs(until it gets to the stricter banning.) To attach the name of thawks carefully planned and thought out program to this seems like trying to latch on to the success of that program.

 

2) This doesn't seem entirely finished. Thawk had planned out lessons, a mission, just about everything before he was even going to consider putting it up for a vote. This has things like

 

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. 

furnished OR endorsed? Why not get with UOTC and sort out one or the other before putting this up?

 

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.

Why not finish the Basic Soldering Course before putting this up?

 

3) 

 

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.

Does anyone expect this to actually have an effect? Do any of you actually read the 700 pages of terms and conditions before checking off "Yes I have read and agree to the terms and conditions"? This will just give you a reason to ban people legitly, it won't actually effect the players.

 

 

 

I can't speak to what goes on in the regular forums, but from my point of view this kinda comes out of left field. There was a LOT of discussion on Thawks BTE program involving a requirement to pass a short famil-like course before playing on the server, then pops up this poll involving not none of that. I'd be very interested what thawk has to say about this in regard to his own BTE concept.

Share this post


Link to post

Macaco,

 

1) That's ridiculous. And to be very clear, there is a HUGE amount of difference between idiocy and incompetency -- this amendment would affect the latter. It also gives people the ability to deal with people who refuse to become competent, which is a huge problem on our server right now. It will be sufficient to allow me, for example, to make sure every night of gaming I can help out on is going to be free of people who don't know what a fireteam is.

 

2) Also ridiculous. As you said, this concept is a soft barrier -- it doesn't need solid enforcing, and it certainly doesn't need a lesson and mission plan for it to succeed.

 

3) Yes, I believe this will help. And if it doesn't, the little tick box acts as a "you've been warned" indicator.

 

 

Frankly, this has been debated for months in the Regular channels. Krause' suggestion only seems to come out of left field because it disagrees in principle with the UOTC BTE program, and because to wait for any further debate before posting seemed pointless. A reminder than A3 is right around the corner and that this could be the cornerstone of how we make an imprint on that game.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...