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

 

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

 

You cannot enact huge player conduct and community based changes through Gameserver or UOTC SOP, a charter amendment is required. The community has the say in these changes, not an officer or two. SOP can build upon this charter amendment to further the amendments intended gameplay changes but SOP can not be the driving force behind the change. You state that since this is a charter amendment that this would impose "immense constraints" for UOTC but nothing is being forced on UOTC outside of dictating required knowledge that can already be set and having a course or questionnaire of some kind available for banned incompetent people. Most of the work has already gone into these two categories through Hellhounds guide and Thawks proof of concept for Basic Soldiering. 

 

Im really sick of the constant low quality gameplay and lack of action from the community that has kept me off the server for some time. Here we are with the writer of the charter proposing a change with months and I would even say years of community discussion going into it, and some people are voting no based on so called "abysmal protocols" to amend later. This shows little faith in the defining aspect of the community to change when the time needs through"voting". 

 

 

 

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.

 

The "tactical knowledge, skills, and abilities" expressed can be defined by UOTC or should they fail, will be the set of skills defined in Hellhounds Guide as stated in the amendment. And no, the UOTC office wouldnt be able to ban with impunity, provide evidence for this statement because it pretty ridiculous. Its funny how the same people who put forth the horribly written GMO proposal are seemingly behind the no votes on the most thought out amendment ive seen in a while. Without some enacted changes I dont really look forward to babysitting on the arma 3 server and I most likely will continue to watch on the sidelines until a proposal such as this passes.

 

Edited by fusionpoo

Share this post


Link to post

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

As with most problems, there isn't a single solution to fix it. This is just one of the many things that needs to change in order to see a large return of regulars, though I can only speak for myself.

 

I do not play as much on the server now for a few reasons:

 

- Perceived low competence in all positions, notably in leadership

- Mission design which does not promote use of realistic tactics

- Mission choice which leans towards missions which do not promote use of realistic tactics

- General intolerance of missions which promote realistic tactics

 

....

.....

 

In all seriousness, I think we've been considering this for awhile. 

.....

 

+1 On all of these. Krause, I wanted to chip in the discussion earlier but ya. In either case no solution is perfect, but doing nothing is the most retarded thing. If we don't start implementing anything, the only thing that will happen for sure, is that less and less of those people that we enjoy playing with, will actually play. Point in case above.

 

Now what I think that this will do for us? Or what I am expecting.

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?

Yep. That is how I understand it. Instead of Squad leaders chasing players and telling them to stick with teams, to cover sector etc, the most basic stuff, it enhances it further and reinforces that people should do what they know to do. No more BF3 pilots etc. To me that is really really simple concept. This should keep the bad player out, and so attract the good player (those above).

 

This was my response that I think sums it up best. My personal opinion is, at this time, adding any more work to UOTC's plate makes it incredibly difficult to get anything done. Do I like the idea? Yes. ...

 

Whatever you guys are doing right now, and we talked about this on Skype you are failing big time in my eyes, like most of officers before you. Only exception I can think of is Jackson. He managed, he provided, he was here and he invested and invented.

 

Now as far as all your tasks combined, unless it is going to be something extraordinary that we havent seen before, then you can put it on hold, since it will have (has had) a minimal impact on the server. If it doesn't do anything for us, the it is as good as useless IMO. 

  • 5.3.6.5 - Officer of the Training Center: These Officers are tasked with the implementation of official training courses within the community, the development of courses that coincide with the standard of play at UO, raising the overall standard of play, producing training plans, and the hiring/dismissal of instructors within the department.

This is what you need to do. This amendment puts you back on track with the basic role of what you needed to do. In essence it will put those that require training (not those that already know what to do) into your classroom and make UOTC more effective contributor to what we are doing. You can't handle it? Resign and let someone else do it. Or motivate more people, people  tend to like blue colors.

 

You have two requirements by this poll:

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

The first requires no work.

 

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

 

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

Simple solution. Not that hard.

.....

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

I am sorry, which of the players cited above care about being touchy feely, because someone got banned. We do not care. We care about being able to play on server and if we spend 2, 3, 4 hours that we came away with enjoyment and not pulling our hair out.

 

Voting yes, because I would like to play on a better server.

 

P.S. Hope I made my points clear, as far as the further political simulator game, I am not interested so you gentlemen enjoy.

Share this post


Link to post

1) As I see it, it simply allows, via charter, bans for incompetence. This point wasn't that it was a bad thing to have, just that it isn't actually a barrier to entry, just stricter enforcement once you have entered. I suppose could be argued this is a remixed version of thawks program with higher competency being expected from the start, and the course being there to teach those who prove they are in desperate need of it rather than forcing everyone to do it.

 

2) Unless there are things which I'm not aware of and which weren't made public in this poll, it's not ridiculous to say it's not fully formed, especially when it uses the language I quoted. I would MUCH prefer something that says "UOTC has agreed to and will do this, with this course and guide which are already made and finalized" if these things ARE already formed and agreed to then it should be worded so, instead of all the "if"s

 

All of my problems are with the way it is presented and formed, not with the idea in itself. I don't think it needed more pointless debating, just more thought put into it's construction. All that said I would vote yes, I think banning for incompetence would have a positive effect on the servers. I'm just curious how far it will be taken, but that isn't something anyone can answer until this gets implemented and we see what happens.

Share this post


Link to post

So, the way this will work, as I understand it, is that players will have to tick a box or click something to confirm that they understand the KSA things right?

 

I see a pretty major flaw in this - with no way to test, a new player could easily think that he understands all of the KSAs, but have actually misunderstood them. He is not aware of this and so thinks he is ok to join the server. He can then join the server not understand the KSAs and be penalised, granted he wouldn't be banned but he hasn't had much opportunity to actually have someone explain it to them in an interactive way, he cannot ask questions of a guide.

 

On top of this, we're relying on the honesty of every player, in the same way as terms and conditions. Let's be honest, how many people actually read Terms and Conditions carefully before clicking accept? People will be able to just say they understand without actually have read anything.

Share this post


Link to post

So, the way this will work, as I understand it, is that players will have to tick a box or click something to confirm that they understand the KSA things right?

 

I see a pretty major flaw in this - with no way to test, a new player could easily think that he understands all of the KSAs, but have actually misunderstood them. He is not aware of this and so thinks he is ok to join the server. He can then join the server not understand the KSAs and be penalised, granted he wouldn't be banned but he hasn't had much opportunity to actually have someone explain it to them in an interactive way, he cannot ask questions of a guide.

 

On top of this, we're relying on the honesty of every player, in the same way as terms and conditions. Let's be honest, how many people actually read Terms and Conditions carefully before clicking accept? People will be able to just say they understand without actually have read anything.

Actually, as with any justice action, the reason for him being kicked/warned will have to documented. Always ,as I explained - and as is our policy at UO, all enforcement is at the discretion of the administration. Borderline cases are never prosecuted - and clear failures result in administrative action.

 

Your last point is irrelevant - there is no alternative available. One cannot peer into the thoughts of another and we must somewhere along the way trust others, even if its to give them enough rope to hang themselves.

Share this post


Link to post

1) As I see it, it simply allows, via charter, bans for incompetence. This point wasn't that it was a bad thing to have, just that it isn't actually a barrier to entry, just stricter enforcement once you have entered. I suppose could be argued this is a remixed version of thawks program with higher competency being expected from the start, and the course being there to teach those who prove they are in desperate need of it rather than forcing everyone to do it.

 

2) Unless there are things which I'm not aware of and which weren't made public in this poll, it's not ridiculous to say it's not fully formed, especially when it uses the language I quoted. I would MUCH prefer something that says "UOTC has agreed to and will do this, with this course and guide which are already made and finalized" if these things ARE already formed and agreed to then it should be worded so, instead of all the "if"s

 

All of my problems are with the way it is presented and formed, not with the idea in itself. I don't think it needed more pointless debating, just more thought put into it's construction. All that said I would vote yes, I think banning for incompetence would have a positive effect on the servers. I'm just curious how far it will be taken, but that isn't something anyone can answer until this gets implemented and we see what happens.

Two regulars (zumorc and albatross) should not decide the entire direction of the community. They have also failed to explain in a coherent way their reservations, it's a lot of verbiage which does not follow and in some ways actually violates the charter (specifically albatross' claim that he can use another officer to create rules for the entire community). If they are unable to do their jobs they can be removed, or alternative mechanisms can be created to accomplish this poll. For instance, UOTC could be removed from the picture entirely and a tactical guide could simply be voted in by a simple operation, which would accomplish the same end but be more tedious and have no specific point of contact accountability. Of course that would require a 2nd poll.

 

I don't think those voting no actually understand zumorc/albatross's posts. They just saw a block of text and voted no. I'd challenge anyone to actually explain why are voting no. I refuted every single claim both of them made. Rein's is an excellent case in point: he claimed that UOTC would be unable to manage KSA modifications without modifying the charter, which is patently incorrect. The others have been unable to explain and seem genuinely confused by a lot of misdirection.

 

I'd urge all voters to READ the actual action items of this poll. The charter amendment and orders to offices. Nothing else matters.

Edited by krause

Share this post


Link to post

100% for this.  We have been discussing this for weeks and now is the time to step forward and take action.

Share this post


Link to post

Your last point is irrelevant - there is no alternative available. One cannot peer into the thoughts of another and we must somewhere along the way trust others, even if its to give them enough rope to hang themselves.

The amount of people who can programme here and you think that creating a basic test (make up 50+ questions have some program to pick 5 random ones, multiple choice, get any incorrect and you have to take it again) is beyond the community? Yes, they could just have the guide open in another window but at least they are definitely reading it.

 

Also, you utterly failed to address my main point. My point was that someone could think that they understand your KSAs but actually does not and so comes onto the server believing that he knows everything he must, only to find himself getting kicked for doing what he thought was correct.

 

With no one to tell him he's wrong until he's actually been on the server, made the mistake, potentially ruining a game and been kicked for it, how is that player meant to know that he misunderstood?

Share this post


Link to post

I support the idea of a BTT, but honestly I am confused by this poll (and I am not the only one).

Is this a poll for Thawks idea? Or did the OP ran out of patience and just put up a poll for it?

From what I can read their are some major differences from Thawks concept and I am afraid that this poll is put up because people want this proposal to be put in effect now,

without developing the idea completely (Reference some posts in the BTT thread itself). They simply don't want to wait any longer.

 

If the above is the case it might become a problem in the future.

Sure I trust Krause, but I don't want to see a poll for something that is put up out of pure impatience.

If this is Thawks idea than why where the changes not mentioned in the BTT thread?

Share this post


Link to post

Actually, as with any justice action, the reason for him being kicked/warned will have to documented. Always ,as I explained - and as is our policy at UO, all enforcement is at the discretion of the administration. Borderline cases are never prosecuted - and clear failures result in administrative action.

 

Well surely the problem with this idea is that you are adding 'incompetence' as a bannable/forced off the server offence.  Which is giving any regular power to ban/kick anyone that they think is 'incompetent'.   That is a great thing if you are going to describe exactly the meaning of incompetence in this context, what is the check-list of activities that if done should be banned for, how many of such activities etc.

 

As of now that stands as a 'ban anyone you feel like and just say incompetence, they can't prove otherwise as I think that he only got 90% accuracy is incompetent'.   It is really a very worrying aspect of the proposal.

Share this post


Link to post

Two regulars (zumorc and albatross) should not decide the entire direction of the community. They have also failed to explain in a coherent way their reservations, it's a lot of verbiage which does not follow and in some ways actually violates the charter (specifically albatross' claim that he can use another officer to create rules for the entire community). If they are unable to do their jobs they can be removed, or alternative mechanisms can be created to accomplish this poll. For instance, UOTC could be removed from the picture entirely and a tactical guide could simply be voted in by a simple operation, which would accomplish the same end but be more tedious and have no specific point of contact accountability. Of course that would require a 2nd poll.

 

I don't think those voting no actually understand zumorc/albatross's posts. They just saw a block of text and voted no. I'd challenge anyone to actually explain why are voting no. I refuted every single claim both of them made. Rein's is an excellent case in point: he claimed that UOTC would be unable to manage KSA modifications without modifying the charter, which is patently incorrect. The others have been unable to explain and seem genuinely confused by a lot of misdirection.

 

I'd urge all voters to READ the actual action items of this poll. The charter amendment and orders to offices. Nothing else matters.

if alternative mechanisms need to be created to accomplish this poll, they should have been created before this poll went up. I'm not saying UOTC must be involved, I'm saying whoever is involved needs to be involved from the start, not a "we'll find someone to handle this after it passes"

Share this post


Link to post

I support the idea of a BTT, but honestly I am confused by this poll (and I am not the only one).

Is this a poll for Thawks idea? Or did the OP ran out of patience and just put up a poll for it?

From what I can read their are some major differences from Thawks concept and I am afraid that this poll is put up because people want this proposal to be put in effect now,

without developing the idea completely (Reference some posts in the BTT thread itself). They simply don't want to wait any longer.

 

If this is Thawks idea than why where the changes not mentioned in the BTT thread?

Agreed it confused me as well.The problem that I see with this is implementing  more strict control

but there is no stricter training program to teach people how to conduct on primary.

 

It feels like hitting kid eating too much candy but not telling him why you hit him, or

how can he change his bad habit.

Edited by enex

Share this post


Link to post

I rather think its better to do something, even an imperfect something than to do nothing at all.

Share this post


Link to post

[massive text got lost, stupid mouse buttons]

I rather think its better to do something, even an imperfect something than to do nothing at all.

I disagree, it might be a solution for the short term but if it contains imperfections, that might/will lead to problems down the line.

Some problems are already brought up in this thread and I am sure that others will be found in a couple of days/weeks/months if this should pass.

Instead of polling an incomplete plan and fix it later you should do it right the first time.

 

Compare it to house, if you have a bad foundation that will cause problems when you keep building on it.

If you see that they made the foundation wrong you are not going to say that they should fix it when the entire house is done right, are you?

You would want them to redo the foundation and think out the plan again even if that takes more time.

Atleast that is my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post

I strongly endorse this proposal, it's clearly a well thought-out solution. It seems to me that the majority of negative reactions are from non-regs, which may be because you are not privy to the many months of Barrier-to-Entry discussion. I don't see a need to re-litigate these issues - we need a better system that allows us to enforce a higher standard of play, period.

 

For those of you claiming there are issues regarding implementation by UOTC, I also urge you to actually read the proposal. The proposal clearly spells out the necessary actions by UOTC, and they are limited to endorsing or producing a guide (which could easily be Hellhound's, and thus require no work at all), and then setting up a basic soldiering course (which was set up by Thawk and is currently ready for implementation).

 

Any claim that this shovels all the work onto UOTC, or that it is not possible for UOTC to do this work, is spurious. It requires little or no effort on the part of UOTC to implement these changes, and these changes are key to increasing the standard of play on the server.

Share this post


Link to post

Compare it to house, if you have a bad foundation that will cause problems when you keep building on it.

If you see that they made the foundation wrong you are not going to say that they should fix it when the entire house is done right, are you?

You would want them to redo the foundation and think out the plan again even if that takes more time.

Atleast that is my opinion.

I am comparing this little differently. I am freezing cold and if I don't build a shelter quick I am going to die. You think I am going to try to worry about 100% perfect foundations? :D

Share this post


Link to post

We can always fix it later if its really such a problem. This isn't like the do all end all solution to everything.

 

I just want people to know what a staggered column actually is

Share this post


Link to post

I strongly endorse this proposal, it's clearly a well thought-out solution. It seems to me that the majority of negative reactions are from non-regs, which may be because you are not privy to the many months of Barrier-to-Entry discussion. I don't see a need to re-litigate these issues - we need a better system that allows us to enforce a higher standard of play, period.

I'm well aware of Barrier project.

 

It's just raising a bar without giving people help and means to reach it.Yes they have UOTC but

will be more advertised when this motion is in?Will there be more well known learning materials?

 

"First time offenders will be kicked, warned to review materials and referred to re-qualify themselves

Repeat offenders will be banned until they are endorsed by UOTC as having completed the Basic Soldiering Course. For terms of this poll the Basic Soldiering Course is ANY qualification endorsed by UOTC and does not necessarily need to be a course. The intended implementation is Thawk's Basic Soldiering Course

 

How will they be warned?

How will they be endorsed to UOTC?

Edited by enex

Share this post


Link to post

I am comparing this little differently. I am freezing cold and if I don't build a shelter quick I am going to die. You think I am going to try to worry about 100% perfect foundations? :biggrin:

 

I was almost going to start a rant about how your comment is completely uncalled for, but than I remembered I am not going to be involved in drama anymore :tongue: .

 

To counter your funny argument ( :wink: ) I would like to say that if you don't properly build your shelter, it might collapse under the severe conditions of winter and you might die anyway. :tongue:

A better idea to prevent your problem would have been better planning and starting earlier before the problem (of not having a shelter) would have shown itself. :smile:

We can always fix it later if its really such a problem. This isn't like the do all end all solution to everything.

 

I just want people to know what a staggered column actually is

 

I do understand your frustration with these things, although I have been inactive on the primary for the last months and my view is quiet limited because of that, I saw these things aswell.

But why hurry with a solution when the problem has been going on for so long anyway?

 

But ofcourse you are entitled to your opinion as much as I am to mine :smile: .

I strongly endorse this proposal, it's clearly a well thought-out solution. It seems to me that the majority of negative reactions are from non-regs, which may be because you are not privy to the many months of Barrier-to-Entry discussion. I don't see a need to re-litigate these issues - we need a better system that allows us to enforce a higher standard of play, period.

 

For those of you claiming there are issues regarding implementation by UOTC, I also urge you to actually read the proposal. The proposal clearly spells out the necessary actions by UOTC, and they are limited to endorsing or producing a guide (which could easily be Hellhound's, and thus require no work at all), and then setting up a basic soldiering course (which was set up by Thawk and is currently ready for implementation).

 

Any claim that this shovels all the work onto UOTC, or that it is not possible for UOTC to do this work, is spurious. It requires little or no effort on the part of UOTC to implement these changes, and these changes are key to increasing the standard of play on the server.

For some reason I believe that the first part of your post is directed at me but that might be incorrect.

First of all I would like to tell you that I am up to date with the BTT apart for some of the last posts (that were more like chatting).

I agree that we should implement a system to raise the standard and if there would be a way to look at posts from 'long forgotten times' I would show you that I already was a great supporter of some sort of barrier.

 

I do however have a problem with polling incomplete plans/ideas.

You are correct that the BTT was discussed a lot, but I am not seeing a lot of the things that were going to be implemented in the original BTT.

For example the use of a specific course thought by BTT instructors, what happened to that?

Same thing with the guide? Thawk said that his guide was almost ready, so why not wait with implementing this untill everything is finished?

 

I would like to go OT for a moment. In the GMO and GM office threads, people didn't want to vote in GMO's before the poll for the office passed.

But if we look at this poll it suffers from the same problem..., it isn't completed. With this I reference the use of Hellhounds guide in case the other one isn't ready yet.

Why not finish the other guide first? We have been discussing this for a year why would we need to implement it now (in a hurry)? Just wait an extra 2-4 weeks so everything is ready and than put up a poll. Summer is almost over so by the time this poll could pass, a lot of people would have been gone anyway. Why quickly implement a system for people that won't be here anymore anyway.

Sure there will be people that need this left but that can wait a couple of weeks.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------

edit:

I say "polling incomplete plans/ideas" above but this is not ment offensive to anyone.

I am sure this poll is put up with the best interest for the community, but I believe that it

shouldn't be rushed because it is needed.

Edited by enforcer

Share this post


Link to post

Have not read the entie poll yet, so i am sorry if i am repeating someone elses point.

 

Honestly i fail to see what this "extra workload" that UOTC faces is. because its essentially being left up to us to deal with offenders and new people. When it comes down to it, we already have a very comprehensive guide made by hellhound that could be used initially and then we can change as needed when we see problems in it.

As for helping new guys and teaching people who fail to live up to the standards, there is already a new and official Famil course in place that will cover what you need to know to play here. so we can simply invite people who are having problems understanding the guide for whatever reason to attend those like before.

There is literally no requirement for UOTC to do more work than we do now. We are simply granted the option.

And no this does not allow UOTC or any other officers to ban with impunity as this does not change the ban system, it just defines a set of skills you have to display to play here. all bans will still be subject to appeal and review by other officers and GM's.

some one correct me if i am completely off course.

Share this post


Link to post

As far as I am concerned this is the best system that UO currently can implement. It removes a grey area from policing the server without grinding the flow of new players to a halt. The issue at stake is how do we effectively remove players who's ability affects the play experience of others in a fair and balanced way? We are not dealing with malicious offences but a lack of knowledge that can be corrected but still affects other players.

 

The only thing is in order for this to work a stricter stance needs to be taken towards a lack of knowledge. To that end it needs to be clear what the base line of knowledge is (not saying it is but we need to ensure that the information is easily found by new members).  

Share this post


Link to post

100% for the concept, I share the view with most of the posters here that gameplay on the server is, at current, rather awful. I'm mainly hesitant on some of the details, and that if something is wrong it could take another 2-week 3/4 majority poll to fix it. Would it be possible to have some sort of "emergency powers" to allow changes to be temporary implemented prior to a 2-week poll approving it?

 

2. Orders to Offices

...

There's a lot of "by the completion of this poll" stuff in here. I think it's a bit of an undue burden to get people to follow orders on something that may or may not pass. Perhaps a Time to Implement instead, after the poll passes?

 

Repeat offenders will be banned until they are endorsed by UOTC as having completed the Basic Soldiering Course.

With the current ban system, how are they supposed to even get on Teamspeak to discuss things with somebody when they're banned, much less get on the training server to complete a course. If possible with TS, I'd suggest a "KSA/BSS Ban" server group that prevents entry into the Primary and Alternate server channels, and obviously require documentation by whoever applied it. That leaves the player free to communicate with somebody to get a course, take the course, or play other UO games without having to have somebody around to unban them for a course, then reban them if they fail, et cetera et cetera.

Share this post


Link to post

 

 

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.

 

What?

 

Really, what is the intent with this statement?

 

 

 

 

 

/Personal note\: Before people dictate what a WSO must do, they need to talk to a WSO and ask us what we can do.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...