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 volunteer to keep my guide updated as needed.  I already planned on expanding it a little, but if UOTC, Regulars and nonregs want to PM me with additions to make it more "official" and comprehensive, I will consider these.  My goal is to keep it from being ShackTac TTP, especially in length.  It's original purpose was a "here is how to not be banned for being an idiot" guide because at the time, last summer, we had a lot of incompetence.  I would feel it as a personal failure if someone were banned for incompetence after reading my guide.

 

I'm abstaining for now though, until this question is answered

 

Will this bring Regulars back onto the ArmA Primary Server?

 

That will improve the standard of play more than any guide or course will.

Edited by HellHound

Share this post


Link to post

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).

Quoted for truth.

 

Easy accessible informations and standardized knowledge baseline.

Edited by enex

Share this post


Link to post

Will this bring Regulars back onto the ArmA Primary Server?

 

I believe that it will. Once this has been implemented and the standard of gameplay rises, we will see more Regular on the Primary.

We all know why there are so few Regulars on the Primary these days...

Share this post


Link to post

I support this SOP and accept the barrier to entry. 

 

I am confident that between the Officers in UOTC and the community that a basic standard will be flushed out in due haste and the implementation of this concept will have a positive outcome on the servers. The hurdles that I can foresee is the immediate work to create said standard for our own use, not to discredit HellHound's work, and then following that, the mentoring that all Regulars and 'regular players' alike will be responsible for to the new players. Of course the expectation applied, then it won't be too much of an inconvenience for us 'vets' and I personally enjoy mentoring some of these guys. Makes my time playing a bit more enjoyable knowing I gave someone a new skill....

 

A definite Yes. Now we need to get to work....

Share this post


Link to post

I believe that it will. Once this has been implemented and the standard of gameplay rises, we will see more Regular on the Primary.

We all know why there are so few Regulars on the Primary these days...

And this leads to no one else becoming a Regular who's /there/ nowadays as they decide who's eligible.  :laugh: 

 

Anyway, on topic, as I disapproved of the previous suggestion for a certain Barrier of Entry, I think this one rectifies all the objections I had, most notably the deterrent of a mandatory course prior to admission into server(s). Fully support a preventive measure with retaliatory effects, not one which punishes all equally or without clear reason(s). Although I still believe the idea of a decline in quality is merely nostalgia (history thus idealized), I'll trust the Regular community's outlook on this issue.

Share this post


Link to post

Although I still believe the idea of a decline in quality is merely nostalgia (history thus idealized),

No, that is simply not true. How can you comment on such things when you haven't been here for very long?

 

I still believe that this could be a lot more effective if there was something in it that proved people's knowledge of the KSAs, whether with a small test or something else.

Share this post


Link to post

This isn't going to improve the standard of play overnight.  It will be on regulars to join the server knowing that it's going to be just as shitty as they remembered but will theoretically get better.

Share this post


Link to post

I support this amendment.

 

It is a simple change that basically accomplishes what we have been doing already and makes it a more concrete situation.

 

Think of that. We already do this exact same thing. Except, it is ten times more "nebulous" than it is in this suggested change. There is no official documentation on how you are to act in the various roles, there is no accountability. You will be receiving a ban strictly on the admin's belief of what is correct and what is not. With this change, concrete examples and skills can be used to measure competence and they can be easily referenced in what ways you were deficient.

 

The required pieces are all there. We have a guide to act as the basis for the system. We have a course designed to teach people that were unable to conform on their own. We have the staff to do the courses and we have willing members to modify the guide as needed. UOTC can modify the guide as they see fit. UOTC can modify the method of educating users as they see fit.

 

This change can be made now without jeopardizing the future, the components can be modified as needed. If a harder entry is desired (ie: you must complete a course to play here), it can be voted in with minor wording change to this amendment.

 

 

A good plan now is better than a perfect plan later.

 

Yes.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

Check box before they can proceed to the next page is one way forward. Implementation at your discretion - as defined in the very broad wording of the poll. They must manually affirm they have acknowledged the tactical guide - how is up to you. In other words, they cannot gain server access information without acknowledging.

Edited by krause

Share this post


Link to post

I'm glad there is no requirement to take a course since there may not be one on a regular basis for those who can only come on late night Pacific time.

 

Another thing. I think everyone would appreciate it if those who voted no would come up with a better plan. Because there is no doubt that something must be done and Thawk's first post on this concept was from Feb 2013.

Edited by Recondo

Share this post


Link to post

I don't post much anymore, but I try to keep an eye on UO.  This one thing is probably the only real reason I would come back to UO in hopes of taking part in an actual supported effort to reform server play and have a real system behind controlling the quality of play on the server.  So far I have not seen a solid or coherent argument against this system that would require a no vote.  All the information is there in the original thread.

 

1. Those confused about the "KSA" or what skills, reference hellhound's guide which is cited in the thread as a basis or standin for the information/skills we would expect our players to have read and understand before joining the server.

 

2. People somehow thinking that UOTC is unable to make this happen, as Godhand stated this would have minimal if any impact on UOTC.  Hellhound's guide already exists and can be adapted or simply used as is.  The course has already been developed and there is no real difference in people taking a famil course now and getting a tag, and people taking a famil course after this passes and getting a tag.  The argument that it would lock UOTC into specific training with no ability to adapt was clearly refuted by krause since none of that is in the charter amendment and would be fully controlled by UOTC as per the order.  

 

3. People concerned about crazy insta-bans because someone fucks up, well in reality this already happens from time to time when someone accidentally NDs or crashes or screws up which I personally think is a bit crazy.  That aside no one is going to start banning people because they don't know an acronym or they make a simple mistake.  If by some chance that were to happen the bans still must go through the GM/GSO/GMO what ever they are these days which is a level of filtration that should prevent retarded pointless bans.  If one should slip through it can be rectified just like any ban currently is, and we can learn from it.   

 

Do not shoot your selves in the foot by voting this down because a couple things are not explicity clear in the charter, it has to be written that way to avoid locking things in that may need adjustment.  This is very well thought out and perfectly worded so that the offices in charge of maintaining and running UO, as well as the regulars will have input and say in how this evolves and is used.  It is simply a tool and it is up to the regulars and officers to use it correctly.  

 

As an old timer and long time previous regular I think this is the one ray of hope I have seen for UO since I resigned, and I honestly wish I could still cast a vote because it would be self defeating for the community to vote this down.

Edited by Mongo

Share this post


Link to post

I think this concept provides a good middle ground between those who support the original BTE concept and those who felt it was too restrictive, by asking people to confirm they possess tactical knowledge we have a mechanism to remove them when they demonstrate that they do not

 

 

As for the actual confirmation page, I would like to see something similar to the current mission submission page, a series of questions requires someone to actually read, rather than a single check box, which realisticlly would be no better than our current system of having the sop's on the same page as server info

Share this post


Link to post

As for the actual confirmation page, I would like to see something similar to the current mission submission page, a series of questions requires someone to actually read, rather than a single check box, which realisticlly would be no better than our current system of having the sop's on the same page as server info

My thoughts exactly.

I personally believe a simple Multiple Choice questionnaire, with 5 Questions & a link to Hellhounds Guide (or whichever guide this uses), for example:

 

 

KSA Questionnaire:

 

1. Which of these is NOT a correct procedure when firing a shoulder mounted rocket launcher (such as an M72 or RPG):

[a] Checking on STHUD that the area behind you is clear and then firing.

Shouting "Clear Backblast!" waiting for someone to say "Backblast clear!" and then firing.

[c] Checking that the area behind you is clear both on STHUD and by turning ingame, shouting "Rocket rocket rocket!" and then firing.

[d] Checking that the area behind you is clear both on STHUD and by turning ingame, shouting "Clear backblast!" and then firing.

 

2. What does a DDD report stand for?

[a] Distance, Direction, Deviation

Direction, Dimension, Description

[c] Direction, Description, Distance

[d] Direction, Deviation, Depth

 

3. What does an ACE Report stand for?

[a] Advantage, Contact, Egression

Ammunition, Casualties, Equipment

[c] Ammunition, Clearance, Enemy

[d] Assault location, Casualties, Enemy

 

4. What does SBF Stand For?

[a] Support Base of Fire

Sustained Base of Fire

[c] Supplement by Fire

[d] Support by Fire

 

5. Which of these is the correct key combination to interact with your radio?

[a]  LCTRL + LSHIFT + S

 LCTRL + LSHIFT + X

[c]  LCTRL + LSHIFT + Q

[d]  LCTRL + ALT + Q

 

 

Confused? Read our guide here.

 

 

Took me all of 5 minutes to come up with 5 questions and I can think of a few more, so together as a community we should be able to come up with quite a few to be randomly selected for each person. If they get one wrong they can retry immediately, but the screen telling them they "failed" has a link to Hellhounds guide - it doesn't matter if they're just reading straight from the guide, at least it's forcing them to read it (unless they know enough already).

 

*edit*

Btw, answers are:

A, C, B, D, B

Edited by Herbiie

Share this post


Link to post

Surely question 1, A would get people injured as STHud only shows your squad, not every guy in the mission.    If you only use the STHud and not actually looking then you are being incompetent and would be removed from the server.

That aside, if this is more than just a 'tick yes if you agree to follow these KSAs' then I am more inclined to support this.   It needs to be a random question selection.  5 questions with a pool of say 40, means that people either have to read the KSA, have it open in a seperate window and hopefully will intake some of what is said as they just scan for the answer or just open the 'UO cheat sheet' which will probably appear within a short time after this is implemented.

 

Make this an actual barrier to entry, not just a terms and conditions.

Share this post


Link to post

Surely question 1, A would get people injured as STHud only shows your squad, not every guy in the mission.    If you only use the STHud and not actually looking then you are being incompetent and would be removed from the server.

Read the question again,

which of these is NOT a correct... so yes, A is not what to do and therefore the correct answer :smile:

 

*edit*

The random selection of questions was also the intent, although I didn't make it clear, sorry.

Edited by Herbiie

Share this post


Link to post

I like the 5 out of 40 possible questions idea, would mean that it won't be the same stuff every time (cheat the cheaters)

 

If the WSO's could implement this we could start a thread and everyone oukd suggest 1 question, would mean a single person won't have to do all the work, and you'll get a broader question/answer base aswel

Share this post


Link to post

Read the question again,

which of these is NOT a correct... so yes, A is not what to do and therefore the correct answer :smile:

Whoops haha, I can't read it seems.

Share this post


Link to post

just send me list of questions and i will make auto summarize by names so all you lazy naabs will do is simply check names and sign next to them. i have no idea if thats possible to make random 5 questions on google but i can try

 

i can do shit like this (rough implementation)

 

actualyl fuck, i will do it anyway while you "debate"

Edited by n2-

Share this post


Link to post

I brought up the multiple choice idea some time back and it immediately got shut down. I would like to see a separate discussion started for that because I too still think it is a good idea.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes.

 

Beta said it best. It may not be the exact solution that I would like to see, but I am willing to compromise for the sake of actually getting something concrete done about A2 around here.

I hope there are others among the no voters that see eye to eye with my on this one and change their vote accordingly.

Put aside differences, compromise and let us just fucking do something for once instead of talking.

Share this post


Link to post

I think you guys forget that a new poll should be put up incase people would like to see such a test, because the idea is not part of this poll.

 

This is what I meant by rushing a poll for an idea that is not fully developed. We are requesting the WSO to at the KSA screen to the webpage without consulting them

and we are already discussing that we should add a small test (call it the original KSA check if you wish).

These decisions should have been made before putting up a poll.

Share this post


Link to post

Enforcer, there is a 101 reply thread in the regular forum that was put up on the 27th last month. It isn't rushed and has been discussed in that specific thread, but also the one put up by Thawk a long time ago. Albeit the latter isn't about this poll the concept has been available for discussion for a long, long time.

Share this post


Link to post

You are correct that it was discussed, I never said it wasn't, I said it isn't included in the current poll as it should have been if this is/was the idea.

Maybe I am making this sound like a big problem, but I don't like polling incomplete ideas (for the lack of a better description). If you want to implement a test it should have been polled together with this poll

and not later.

 

But that is just my opinion.

 

edit: Why am I calling the barrier to entry, BTT in my previous posts? Where did I get that term from?

Edited by enforcer

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...