Staff Feedback Thread

[R.P.Curator]

Fine. Lets be totally precise!
Rules are as follows:

I did the research prior to asking the relocation. There is only 1 Lawful - Non Bretonian - PoB in Newcastle. Rest of the PoBs are unlawful Bretonian.
The request was to change IFF to BiS (from Unaffiliated); though I could've done that myself. Impact of the Gameplay and Roleplay in the area: To be decided.
The "waive these standards when appropriate" was used plenty In my case.


IFF change request can be declined according to the rules. Since my IFF was Unaffiliated, I could've opted to affiliate it myself, prior or post relocation.


Rename change is valid according to the rules; as specified in the request; to integrate with the System and the following RP.


Relocation has every valid right to be performed, as per "The system the PoB was located within was removed".

Relocation, according to the rules expressed, is valid. IFF and Rename change can be declined. These are 2 different requests. They got mixed and all declined; as per "The Staff can treat this case by case and simply waive these standards and decline".
Understood.
Double standards.
Lack of proper rules for relocation and informing the players of said rules - I am not the only one who owns a PoB and I'm a veteran. There are new players dropping PoBs all over the place.
The rules are for everyone who is not Staff. Got It.
A complete disregard of the rules when It comes to Staff (excluding Admins; they actually bothered to talk to me and be constructive), as seen and expressed above.
I'm just a naughty boy digging his own hole cause I tried to cheat the system by trying to run from a money making location that takes too much time to a money making location where it doesn't take as much time! Tho I'd make less credits, since I was further away from the sell points! Damn! I didn't think things through!

[jammi]

Your issues have been amply addressed. Take your disingenuous nonsense elsewhere.

---

News article library, feedback and content requests.

[Sayne]

Thanks to the staff for the events--they all look like good fun.

However, is there a way we can get some of these events scheduled for those in upside-down land and European players mutually? I know timezones are tricky but it's quite depressing when I'm unable to participate. Most of the official and unofficial events all seem to happen at 0400 or 0500 in the morning here and, despite being interested in many of them, I am not a morning person.

Thanks, I figured I'd post this here since I feel it constitutes as feedback for the team.

---

I've lost people who meant the world to me...and I'm still doing just fine.

I'm coming for everything they said I couldn't have.

[Barrier]

Thanks to the staff for the events--they all look like good fun.

However, is there a way we can get some of these events scheduled for those in upside-down land and European players mutually? I know timezones are tricky but it's quite depressing when I'm unable to participate. Most of the official and unofficial events all seem to happen at 0400 or 0500 in the morning here and, despite being interested in many of them, I am not a morning person.

Thanks, I figured I'd post this here since I feel it constitutes as feedback for the team.

The solution to this that's I've reached after a number of versions is 24/7 events with "active hours" which have increased incentives. However, not all event types may have this implemented, because at the end of the day, certain events require a large enough amount of players to run.

The next two events will have variations of this structure, which should allow people from all timezones to participate.

[Chronicron]

,"Faction leader of the player being sanctioned" https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthrea...#pid403090 and in green bottom of sanction, so not sent.

I'd like to extend the debate here rather than have it be conducted in a sanction thread.

Regardless, I suggest that faction second-in-commands are included in this statement since faction leaders are not always able to perform their duties due to iRL happenings, that's pretty much their role.

I have also received evidence of "alleged" misconduct of one our (Die Wilde Jagd) members in the past as a second-in-command so I believe this should not be an issue, unless things have changed somehow.

---

[Eternal.Journey]

,"Faction leader of the player being sanctioned" https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthrea...#pid403090 and in green bottom of sanction, so not sent.

I'd like to extend the debate here rather than have it be conducted in a sanction thread.

Regardless, I suggest that faction second-in-commands are included in this statement since faction leaders are not always able to perform their duties due to iRL happenings, that's pretty much their role.

I have also received evidence of "alleged" misconduct of one our (Die Wilde Jagd) members in the past as a second-in-command so I believe this should not be an issue, unless things have changed somehow.

I was under the impression that this is part of the entire purpose of a 2IC, to be able to handle matters such as these, if it happens that the 1IC is unable to request evidences or is unavailable for whatever reason. In this case, sure I was available but it should not solely be the 1IC only that can request?

I would like to know if this is an oversight or not, as there are some times that I find myself unreachable and far away from the community.

---

[Luke.]

We are talking about it as some of us do agree that the current system regarding handing out evidence, despite it being policy for a very long time, seems like a bit of a farce.

It's not often caused any issues to my knowledge, but I presume it's in-part due to limiting how many people staff have to PM about it since that could get out of control, and more importantly making sure that it's not mishandled as some forms of evidence may expose the reporter which could fan the flames.

We've no doubt though, that evidence is shared about anyway and there's not a lot we can do about that but I'm sure there's other ways to set limitations via faction so anyone in a 1-3ic position could be trusted, or maybe OFs set their own permissions in regards to who's allowed to ask. That involves telling us however so we know in advance, which may not be practical.

That's my personal take, not a staff statement on it.

---

[Tunicle]

As @Luke above, this is my personal opinion not a admin statement.

The policy is from a different era (2009) and not really a good match for today. Personally, to my mind, seeing evidence for some of the mechanistic rulebreaks is pointless. The sanction details the reason and the Official Faction can decide what they wish to do with their member. I can understand however the need for some people t o evaluate material themselves and thus the need for the evidence.

Personally I would like to see evidence go only to the Official Faction forum account when evidence of a tagged ship showing the sanctioned player is in the faction. Then the factioncan act as they see appropriate. If the faction account is not shared enough or shared too much then this is a faction problem to address, not the admins.

Violation reports are never usually processed unless a minimum number of inputs have appeared with no dissent, even then only the more obvious mechanistic ones with black and white evidence. Sometimes the sanctioned person provides context that changes the perspective and the sanction is changed, often with rationale to the server community if needed. The more complex, especially Rule 1 breaks, are visible to at least 18 people currently (moderators, adms and some of the server staff such as Alex.) and voted upon. There is a recurrent discussion about opening evidence up to the community but this leads to problems we have yet to find a solution for, not least "innocent until found guilty". Trial by forum is not pleasant and rarely achieves anything positive.

---

[Shulsky]

Bravo to all staff involved with the rollback incident and the restoration of base modules, materials, and bank amounts; definitely not a great time when, soon after an update occurs, bases are broken and need to be restored to a pre-update. That's doubly so when it's the holidays and a lot of people were moving about on the game.

Good job with it, you handled the issue with more grace than I probably would, especially considering most feedback's more or less negative with y'all.

---

Operation Have Sea

[Luke.]

Personally want to thank the staff for dealing with it so fast. I was very little part of it due to work/illness but the others worked tirelessly to correct around 25 requests, some of which including multiple PoBs. A combined effort in their respective fields especially from firesilver, Kai (EisenSeele), Krmloo, Alex and Aingar means it was mitigated fast and measures taken so this doesn't happen again in the future.

I know it may not be obvious at times but the staff and devs really do care about Discovery and its players, and we are sorry once again for the issues in the first place. We all learned something from it too.

---