Staff Feedback Thread

[SnakThree]

Some stuff from Discord sever, GM lounge. Maybe Game Masters missed all of it so here it is, again:

07/04/2020
Still no answer about why "reasonable POB demands" rule was added when unlawfuls don't need any demands to attack POBs. So far this rule change appears to be directed at houses, Champ even pointed out how Liberty prices are close to dangerous (no more than 50M per month) while most unlawfuls ask at least 50M per month.

07/04/2020
If Game Master points out how Liberty has high prices (https://i.imgur.com/mGQE1dM.png) while unlawfuls were demanding more, or sieging without demands, then the staff is obviously shortsighted and puts another dent in lawful influence in their own ZOI. Lawfuls are already restricted from sieging non-hostile POBs in red systems, and can't tax POBs in yellow systems. Which means that unlawfuls can siege more POBs and without demands if they choose to. Which means that staff once again ***** over lawfuls only.

Yesterday at 8:32 AM
It has been some time since you ignored what reasonable demand from POB is and why was it added, if unlawfuls don't need demands to siege anything. On the same subject, how is Liberty asking no more than 50M per month from POB is worse than unlawfuls asking no less than 50M per month.

Still nothing. If you can't respond with reasonable explanation then stop forcing unreasonable rules on us.

---

[Ramke]

Some stuff from Discord sever, GM lounge. Maybe Game Masters missed all of it so here it is, again:

07/04/2020
Still no answer about why "reasonable POB demands" rule was added when unlawfuls don't need any demands to attack POBs. So far this rule change appears to be directed at houses, Champ even pointed out how Liberty prices are close to dangerous (no more than 50M per month) while most unlawfuls ask at least 50M per month.

07/04/2020
If Game Master points out how Liberty has high prices (https://i.imgur.com/mGQE1dM.png) while unlawfuls were demanding more, or sieging without demands, then the staff is obviously shortsighted and puts another dent in lawful influence in their own ZOI. Lawfuls are already restricted from sieging non-hostile POBs in red systems, and can't tax POBs in yellow systems. Which means that unlawfuls can siege more POBs and without demands if they choose to. Which means that staff once again ***** over lawfuls only.

Yesterday at 8:32 AM
It has been some time since you ignored what reasonable demand from POB is and why was it added, if unlawfuls don't need demands to siege anything. On the same subject, how is Liberty asking no more than 50M per month from POB is worse than unlawfuls asking no less than 50M per month.

Still nothing. If you can't respond with reasonable explanation then stop forcing unreasonable rules on us.

> Demands of player bases must be reasonable
Ok so... what is and what isn't a reasonable demand of POBs?

Big ups to this question. It's my intent to rewrite a meaningful rules clarification thread, but getting consensus that you can engrave in text can be tricky. In the mean time, the feel seems to be that in excess of the most steep housegov demands, being Liberty, is dangerous territory.

That is;

- 50.000.000 per month
- 500.000.000 per year
- 1.000.000.000 one-time

As it is with many rules to avoid having players having to memorise 20 pdfs worth of specific scenarios, "reasonable" is reviewed case-by-case. It's been pointed out that Liberty prices are dangerous territory and are examples of "the highest you can go" in terms of POB taxes as quoted above. The same applies for unlawfuls, which have previously "fined" stations for 150m+ and then demanded 100m+ in monthly tribute.

Be reasonable with your demands.

---

[SnakThree]

Some stuff from Discord sever, GM lounge. Maybe Game Masters missed all of it so here it is, again:

07/04/2020
Still no answer about why "reasonable POB demands" rule was added when unlawfuls don't need any demands to attack POBs. So far this rule change appears to be directed at houses, Champ even pointed out how Liberty prices are close to dangerous (no more than 50M per month) while most unlawfuls ask at least 50M per month.

07/04/2020
If Game Master points out how Liberty has high prices (https://i.imgur.com/mGQE1dM.png) while unlawfuls were demanding more, or sieging without demands, then the staff is obviously shortsighted and puts another dent in lawful influence in their own ZOI. Lawfuls are already restricted from sieging non-hostile POBs in red systems, and can't tax POBs in yellow systems. Which means that unlawfuls can siege more POBs and without demands if they choose to. Which means that staff once again ***** over lawfuls only.

Yesterday at 8:32 AM
It has been some time since you ignored what reasonable demand from POB is and why was it added, if unlawfuls don't need demands to siege anything. On the same subject, how is Liberty asking no more than 50M per month from POB is worse than unlawfuls asking no less than 50M per month.

Still nothing. If you can't respond with reasonable explanation then stop forcing unreasonable rules on us.

> Demands of player bases must be reasonable
Ok so... what is and what isn't a reasonable demand of POBs?

Big ups to this question. It's my intent to rewrite a meaningful rules clarification thread, but getting consensus that you can engrave in text can be tricky. In the mean time, the feel seems to be that in excess of the most steep housegov demands, being Liberty, is dangerous territory.

That is;

- 50.000.000 per month
- 500.000.000 per year
- 1.000.000.000 one-time

As it is with many rules to avoid having players having to memorise 20 pdfs worth of specific scenarios, "reasonable" is reviewed case-by-case. It's been pointed out that Liberty prices are dangerous territory and are examples of "the highest you can go" in terms of POB taxes as quoted above. The same applies for unlawfuls, which have previously "fined" stations for 150m+ and then demanded 100m+ in monthly tribute.

Be reasonable with your demands.

See, that's where the issue stands. 50M or less per month for POB in most active house with biggest lawful playerbase is more than reasonable yet we were singled out as dangerous territory, despite being less than unlawful demands that offer you nothing in return for money.

---

[Foxglove]

The term gamemaster is/was a very transparent attempt, from a certain small group (none of whom I am addressing), at pushing a narrative of "new management" (which is an incredibly arrogant term in itself) and distancing our new "staff" (again, arrogant) and mighty overlords from the admins they took the server from, to make us all believe how great and awesome they were going to make Discovery.

It's an awful, horrible word, and the colour is just plain wrong.

I think you should rename the role back to Server Administrator and change the colour back to its old green.

I personally see your point and share it to some degree. The reason why the name was changed from admin to game master was to distinguish old from new. The color was made the same as the devs to show that the server team is more unified where before, admins and (head) devs had a somewhat antagonistic relationship. To me, changing it back to the old would be more of an aesthetic change, though, and I am not too keen on these. Something that is not broken does not need fixing. However, if there honestly is a desire to have the game masters renamed and recoloured, I think that it would be an easy change. It would need to be shared by a not merely marginal group of players at least, however.

---

[Thexare]

To me, changing it back to the old would be more of an aesthetic change, though, and I am not too keen on these.

I disagree, the color's also a clarity change. This would let people tell at a glance who does game administration and who does mod development.

I don't care about the name either way, but bringing back admin green does seem like a good idea to me.

[Foxglove]

To me, changing it back to the old would be more of an aesthetic change, though, and I am not too keen on these.

I disagree, the color's also a clarity change. This would let people tell at a glance who does game administration and who does mod development.

I don't care about the name either way, but bringing back admin green does seem like a good idea to me.

That is a very fair point. I would perhaps suggest making a poll about the color change in the appropriate subforum. I can't guarantee it will work but I will make it a GM vote if we have a majority in favour.

---

[Megaera]

To me, changing it back to the old would be more of an aesthetic change, though, and I am not too keen on these.

I disagree, the color's also a clarity change. This would let people tell at a glance who does game administration and who does mod development.

I don't care about the name either way, but bringing back admin green does seem like a good idea to me.

I would really prefer to have the green admin role back. Why? Because you can see in one glace who is admin and who is a dev. I disliked the change then and I dislike it now. Making everyone yellow is just confusing. Especially now there is like 30+ devs

---

---

Matriarch Of the Gen'an Chrysanthemums - Ishikawa Aya
Gen'an Cell Information - Recruitment - Communications Network

---

Megaera - Ishikawa Masako
Feedback - Data Storage - Birth of a goddess

---

[Foxglove]

Some stuff from Discord sever, GM lounge. Maybe Game Masters missed all of it so here it is, again:

07/04/2020
Still no answer about why "reasonable POB demands" rule was added when unlawfuls don't need any demands to attack POBs. So far this rule change appears to be directed at houses, Champ even pointed out how Liberty prices are close to dangerous (no more than 50M per month) while most unlawfuls ask at least 50M per month.

07/04/2020
If Game Master points out how Liberty has high prices (https://i.imgur.com/mGQE1dM.png) while unlawfuls were demanding more, or sieging without demands, then the staff is obviously shortsighted and puts another dent in lawful influence in their own ZOI. Lawfuls are already restricted from sieging non-hostile POBs in red systems, and can't tax POBs in yellow systems. Which means that unlawfuls can siege more POBs and without demands if they choose to. Which means that staff once again ***** over lawfuls only.

Yesterday at 8:32 AM
It has been some time since you ignored what reasonable demand from POB is and why was it added, if unlawfuls don't need demands to siege anything. On the same subject, how is Liberty asking no more than 50M per month from POB is worse than unlawfuls asking no less than 50M per month.

Still nothing. If you can't respond with reasonable explanation then stop forcing unreasonable rules on us.

> Demands of player bases must be reasonable
Ok so... what is and what isn't a reasonable demand of POBs?

Big ups to this question. It's my intent to rewrite a meaningful rules clarification thread, but getting consensus that you can engrave in text can be tricky. In the mean time, the feel seems to be that in excess of the most steep housegov demands, being Liberty, is dangerous territory.

That is;

- 50.000.000 per month
- 500.000.000 per year
- 1.000.000.000 one-time

As it is with many rules to avoid having players having to memorise 20 pdfs worth of specific scenarios, "reasonable" is reviewed case-by-case. It's been pointed out that Liberty prices are dangerous territory and are examples of "the highest you can go" in terms of POB taxes as quoted above. The same applies for unlawfuls, which have previously "fined" stations for 150m+ and then demanded 100m+ in monthly tribute.

Be reasonable with your demands.

See, that's where the issue stands. 50M or less per month for POB in most active house with biggest lawful playerbase is more than reasonable yet we were singled out as dangerous territory, despite being less than unlawful demands that offer you nothing in return for money.

Your judgment is valid. Just as valid as Ramke's. The word "appropriate" requires a value judgment and that precludes this issue from being able to be solved in a manner that would make people say it is correct. Both have arguments in favour and as long as that is the case, this argument will always be circular.

---

[Karlotta]

Having different colors for admins/gms and devs would make it easier for people know who to turn to for what.

More important than arguing about colors though is that we finally keep people from power-tripping. A start would be codes of conduct for lead devs, gms/admins, and official faction leaders. Most of the incompetence and animosity here comes from people simply having no idea how to handle their pixel power responsibly.

---

User was banned for: https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthrea...tid=200950
Time left: (Permanent)

[Altejago]

Having different colors for admins/gms and devs would make it easier for people know who to turn to for what.

More important than arguing about colors though is that we finally keep people from power-tripping. A start would be codes of conduct for lead devs, gms/admins, and official faction leaders. Most of the incompetence and animosity here comes from people simply having no idea how to handle their pixel power responsibly.

You are asking way too much of these people...

---