TC Bulletin and Policy Change 10/18/09

[learningdisease]

Originally Posted by DraGa

It was overturned in the sense that Ashur was unbanned because he's "useful" to their ends, and not because he broke the rules. That in itself is the very definition of overturned sir.

A "continued" discussion can ONLY be "continued" with ALL the staff present, at the time of the original decision, and with the additional staff for the second "continuation". The term LESS is highly objective and NOT subjective in this case.

...

Red Text: I'm not going to argue with you about that exact instance. I will say that the policy was modified. The only thing overturned was the decision to perma-ban Ashur, we still don't know exactly what will occur from this point, as the whole issue is still unfolding. Like I said earlier, one player is not reason enough to shout that this whole project is a farce and that the world is coming to an end. I understand your frustration on the fact that he has a bad reputation and that STAFF is dealing with a player with so much baggage, but it is what it is, as with so many other things.

Green Text: I'm guessing you aren't aware of the way that IRC and Forum discussions for STAFF take place. I can explain it for you in this way: We aren't here 24/7, and when decisions are made, those who are present will make them, as more people who are on STAFF wake up or get out of school or drop of their kids etc., they will impart their opinions on the matters if they wish to do so. After hearing from MORE people than only those who made the policy (Some of whom were without doubt present for the original decision), changes were made. Its the nature of this project, not everyone is around when they should be, so it takes a couple days for all input to be processed. It just so happens that decisions were posted DURING the discussion, rather than after getting input from everyone and then posting.

I am hoping that I can quell fears that the team is disrupting and that there is all out mayhem and havoc going on, because that is not the case. Its simply a heated debate, and hot heads speak quickly (and sometimes without 100% forethought).

SWGEmu has been around for a long time, we've dealt with countless issues more serious than this one, and the amount of outcry seems to be the result of having a test center that is "playable".

Bear with us... We listen to the community, I'm sure you all realize the efforts we put into interfacing and allowing for the free discourse of ideas, but we have to make choices that are best for the completion of a SOLID, STABLE, ACCURATE Pre-CU Experience.

[Timbab]

Originally Posted by learningdisease

SWGEmu has been around for a long time, we've dealt with countless issues more serious than this one, and the amount of outcry seems to be the result of having a test center that is "playable".

Not like the 'countless issues' didn't effect the staff. We're at this point now for things that started AGES ago. Thing certain members, including me, spoke against which are almost identical to what the majority of the community sees now. It's funny, while the same **** has been going on for ages, we, the few who stood up against it were portrayed as the little kids who are just raging, when in reality it was just the truth as it is clearly shown today.

Look what happened, 2 highly important Dev's aren't staff anymore over this bull****, one who made an awful lot of progress on the Emu as a whole, 'which wasn't enough' for some higher ups.

But whatever, I'm not going deeper into it, at least now where this has hit rock bottom in the wide public eye, actually work on the issues that started at least one year ago, not cover it up like the other times.

It's not the little 'silly' raging group anymore, it's your actual community you're dealing with now. This is far from blowing this out of proportion.

[learningdisease]

Originally Posted by Timbab

Not like the 'countless issues' didn't effect the staff. We're at this point now for things that started AGES ago. Thing certain members, including me, spoke against which are almost identical to what the majority of the community sees now. It's funny, while the same **** has been going on for ages, we, the few who stood up against it were portrayed as the little kids who are just raging, when in reality it was just the truth as it is clearly shown today.

Look what happened, 2 highly important Dev's aren't staff anymore over this bull****, one who made an awful lot of progress on the Emu as a whole, 'which wasn't enough' for some higher ups.

But whatever, I'm not going deeper into it, at least now where this has hit rock bottom in the wide public eye, actually work on the issues that started at least one year ago, not cover it up like the other times.

It's not the little 'silly' raging group anymore, it's your actual community you're dealing with now. This is far from blowing this out of proportion.

Okay, Timbab, I'll play along.

Taking into account for all of the dramafests and "issues", and accepting that the decisions made up to this point, all combined and played out over the years have come to this moment, this whole argument of a modification of a rule for exploiters:
What does the community think?
What does the community feel is the appropriate course of action?
Is there a way we can appease both the community and the STAFF?

So far:

What does the community think?
50/50 or 40/60 split over "good idea to involve exploiters in testing" vs "exploiters should never be dealt with"

What does the community feel is the appropriate course of action?
This is where we have not had as much input from the community. Enough flaming, +1ing, and counterpointing. What would you have done were you in STAFF's position?

Is there a way we can appease both the community and STAFF?
I certainly think so.
Maybe the community wants Ashur perma-banned, but allow for the exploitation team.
Maybe the community will be okay with whatever STAFF decides.
All I know is, we need more constructive input from you guys if we are going to have this discussion.

If you feel in anyway that you would be persecuted for your opinions, feel free to PM me or ANY OTHER Blue Name here at the SWGEmu Forums, although I certainly hope that sort of atmosphere would not come to our community.

Please work with us in a constructive and mature manner, I'm sure we will all be able to come to a reasonable compromise.

Thanks.

[Timbab]

Originally Posted by learningdisease

Okay, Timbab, I'll play along.

Taking into account for all of the dramafests and "issues", and accepting that the decisions made up to this point, all combined and played out over the years have come to this moment, this whole argument of a modification of a rule for exploiters:
What does the community think?
What does the community feel is the appropriate course of action?
Is there a way we can appease both the community and the STAFF?

So far:

What does the community think?
50/50 or 40/60 split over "good idea to involve exploiters in testing" vs "exploiters should never be dealt with"

What does the community feel is the appropriate course of action?
This is where we have not had as much input from the community. Enough flaming, +1ing, and counterpointing. What would you have done were you in STAFF's position?

Is there a way we can appease both the community and STAFF?
I certainly think so.
Maybe the community wants Ashur perma-banned, but allow for the exploitation team.
Maybe the community will be okay with whatever STAFF decides.
All I know is, we need more constructive input from you guys if we are going to have this discussion.

If you feel in anyway that you would be persecuted for your opinions, feel free to PM me or ANY OTHER Blue Name here at the SWGEmu Forums, although I certainly hope that sort of atmosphere would not come to our community.

Please work with us in a constructive and mature manner, I'm sure we will all be able to come to a reasonable compromise.

Thanks.

You do realize that the actual speedhacking isn't the problem with the majority right? The majority feel the staff can't be trusted since first they were banned, then they were made 'staff'.

From all the conflicts we and others had with the staff over the year it basically comes down to this:

A small group of staff acts on their believes, with out acting out of interest for the staff, but rather on what they think is best. This thread clearly showed proof in this instance on how the staff was hugely split on the subject and pushed out non the less.

The credibility just lacks in a lot of cases, when it comes to things such as this. A lot of things were happening in the background away from the public over the years which we clearly attacked on numerous times which caused 'drama'. This is probably the FIRST time that the staff tripped over their own mistake in public and almost killed off their credibility with it.

I don't think you personally should be discussing this, Learning, since it's a lot deeper than a few simple issues or what you've heard from our 'drama' over the years. I personally don't care anymore, but having this thread and basically the SAME issue that we've addressed a couple of times in public now, I just had to speak a few words.

You can counter me all you want, this thread proved a lot to the people and I should be the least of your worries, I'd rather look into the future and look how to prevent stuff like this happening again. But then again, I'm not staff, none of my business right?

[learningdisease]

Originally Posted by Timbab

You do realize that the actual speedhacking isn't the problem with the majority right? The majority feel the staff can't be trusted since first they were banned, then they were made 'staff'.

From all the conflicts we and others had with the staff over the year it basically comes down to this:

A small group of staff acts on their believes, with out acting out of interest for the staff, but rather on what they think is best. This thread clearly showed proof in this instance on how the staff was hugely split on the subject and pushed out non the less.

The credibility just lacks in a lot of cases, when it comes to things such as this. A lot of things were happening in the background away from the public over the years which we clearly attacked on numerous times which caused 'drama'. This is probably the FIRST time that the staff tripped over their own mistake in public and almost killed off their credibility with it.

I don't think you personally should be discussing this, Learning, since it's a lot deeper than a few simple issues or what you've heard from our 'drama' over the years. I personally don't care anymore, but having this thread and basically the SAME issue that we've addressed a couple of times in public now, I just had to speak a few words.

You can counter me all you want, this thread proved a lot to the people and I should be the least of your worries, I'd rather look into the future and look how to prevent stuff like this happening again. But then again, I'm not staff, none of my business right?

This is a completely legitimate concern Timbab, and it is your business, as you are part of the community here. I'm not singling you out.

Instead of looking at this as a debacle, I hope we can look at it as a way to strengthen the bond of trust between STAFF and the community. The STAFF are taking a VERY introspective look at themselves after all of this, and now is the time to let STAFF know exactly what you think about it. We all take your concerns seriously, provided that they are brought up maturely and seriously as well.

Things are changing quickly in this project at this stage, we are snowballing towards something VERY monumental, and we don't want to discard any concerns.

I just want to put forth these ideas here now, and I hope that the community can understand when I say that the things the community brings up in this thread, or privately to any staff member you choose regarding these issues, will be taken VERY seriously.

Thats all I have left to say for this issue. Thanks to all the community members who have input their opinions and concerns in a mature fashion. I hope everyone will come to an understanding.

[Ekowraith]

You can't have it both ways. You can't simultaneously claim that Ashur would be an asset and that he's not being rewarded by being on the exploitation team. It's one or the other.

I find the decision to unpermaban Ashur in the face of a zero-tolerance policy unfathomable. Regardless of his practical value, the overturn undermines the effectiveness of the policy, damages the staff's credibility, and fundamentally weakens the integrity of the community. It was an inconsiderate decision.

It appears that he's been banned once again. Hopefully it's permanent this time.

[sXeKJB]

Originally Posted by learningdisease

Okay, Timbab, I'll play along.

Taking into account for all of the dramafests and "issues", and accepting that the decisions made up to this point, all combined and played out over the years have come to this moment, this whole argument of a modification of a rule for exploiters:
What does the community think?
What does the community feel is the appropriate course of action?
Is there a way we can appease both the community and the STAFF?

So far:

What does the community think?
50/50 or 40/60 split over "good idea to involve exploiters in testing" vs "exploiters should never be dealt with"

What does the community feel is the appropriate course of action?
This is where we have not had as much input from the community. Enough flaming, +1ing, and counterpointing. What would you have done were you in STAFF's position?

Is there a way we can appease both the community and STAFF?
I certainly think so.
Maybe the community wants Ashur perma-banned, but allow for the exploitation team.
Maybe the community will be okay with whatever STAFF decides.
All I know is, we need more constructive input from you guys if we are going to have this discussion.

If you feel in anyway that you would be persecuted for your opinions, feel free to PM me or ANY OTHER Blue Name here at the SWGEmu Forums, although I certainly hope that sort of atmosphere would not come to our community.

Please work with us in a constructive and mature manner, I'm sure we will all be able to come to a reasonable compromise.

Thanks.

I would feel more comfortable if this exploitation team was started from the ground up, have people submit some type of resume to assure they are knowledgeable about finding exploits and properly exploiting who are also trustworthy until proven otherwise, just like people have to submit to be apart of QA.

I don't like the idea of people who are known offenders of exploiting for the wrong reasons (even if they want to come back to do "good").

A well put together exploitation team that has members dedicated to finding exploits, and not veered off by jedi/irc/forum drama will be more effective I believe; maybe even keep them discrete, so the exploits aren't brought out into the wild.

Basically I'm all for the idea of a well constructed exploitation team, but I don't support bringing back people who have not been trustworthy.