Admin Feedback Thread (Archived)

[Texas Red]

You have always done everything right in my book. Keep it up you guys. Glad to see this place is still kicking.

[Geoffacake]

Its 2am in the morning for me, discussing in my very warm bed with Vendetta on Skype, the fact that we've read through the majority of this thread makes me feel that the Admins are bombarded by almost an entire storm of not just painful criticism but som e that members use so richously to demoralise a group of people who are willingly allowing to give up their spare time, completely free without charge, to make sure that this community tries to stay as stable as possible.

Yes this might be the achohol talking but the fact they do this, I would happily give them a thousand handshakes and maybe buy them a beer (or a drink of their choice) gladly if I met them in person. Things that happen that cause major instability amongst the group of admins is bound to happen. The internet is an unpredictable place which a community is barely predictable in every occasion. And to people who think as if they have the up most power to Completely demoralise a team who sacrafice more than I've known on this community, I'd suggest you re-check how much respect you predict to receive from others.

---

[Mímir]

Its 2am in the morning for me, discussing in my very warm bed with Vendetta on Skype, the fact that we've read through the majority of this thread makes me feel that the Admins are bombarded by almost an entire storm of not just painful criticism but som e that members use so richously to demoralise a group of people who are willingly allowing to give up their spare time, completely free without charge, to make sure that this community tries to stay as stable as possible.

I do understand your sentiment, but I would like you to also try and understand why the viewpoint you present is a 'free round' and thus a bit unfair. It goes without saying that we all appreciate the function of admins, and the fact that some players take it upon themselves to spend their time admin'ing.

That doesn't make every admin a good one, nor does it make every admin decision a right one. It shouldn't make admins exempt from critique either. I'll argue that admins have no real way of carrying out their roles and maintaining the community if there is no critique - i.e. critique is a positive, a fuel for change and improvement, and not a super dangerous negative thing, y'know?

I do hope you - and others - understand the relation between the admin function and the admin person, and keep that in mind when reading.

There's not a lot to gain and a whole lot to lose for those of us who have some clarity of vision and care enough about the community to voice our concerns (most of us have been banned or already stopped playing altogether, if you haven't noticed) - I'd like you to understand that too when writing +1 style remarks, as those types of remarks ultimately becomes part of the problem. It hinders progress and free and open discussion.

---

[Geoffacake]

Its 2am in the morning for me, discussing in my very warm bed with Vendetta on Skype, the fact that we've read through the majority of this thread makes me feel that the Admins are bombarded by almost an entire storm of not just painful criticism but som e that members use so richously to demoralise a group of people who are willingly allowing to give up their spare time, completely free without charge, to make sure that this community tries to stay as stable as possible.

I do understand your sentiment, but I would like you to also try and understand why the viewpoint you present is a 'free round' and thus a bit unfair. It goes without saying that we all appreciate the function of admins, and the fact that some players take it upon themselves to spend their time admin'ing.

That doesn't make every admin a good one, nor does it make every admin decision a right one. It shouldn't make admins exempt from critique either. I'll argue that admins have no real way of carrying out their roles and maintaining the community if there is no critique - i.e. critique is a positive, a fuel for change and improvement, and not a super dangerous negative thing, y'know?

I do hope you - and others - understand the relation between the admin function and the admin person, and keep that in mind when reading.

There's not a lot to gain and a whole lot to lose for those of us who have some clarity of vision and care enough about the community to voice our concerns (most of us have been banned or already stopped playing altogether, if you haven't noticed) - I'd like you to understand that too when writing +1 style remarks, as those types of remarks ultimately becomes part of the problem. It hinders progress and free and open discussion.

Its okay, i understand, i'll re-write what i said, in simpler terms for you. Just to do what you said about understanding what you said about voicing my concern about the admin situation.

Ehemm~

---

To: Administrative group of Discovery Freelancer.

You guys do pretty good, keep it up, i like your attitude!
Will RP again.
XXX
- Geoff

---

You know, pass them some encouragement for attempting to keep a stable server.

[Sava.ua]

Keeping server stable isn't an excuse for bias and hypocricy. Let's separate flies from cutlets.
Hello, Mimir.

---

User was banned for: http://discoverygc.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=125634
Time left: (Permanent)

[jammi]

It feels to me as if the group you mentioned it not really listed as hostile there in your faction status, so thank you for thanking me for restoring the ships which I wont really do, because the way you just try to solve this would mean that you could shoot every random Freelancer with a minimum of roleplay. Im so far lacking any kind of forum evidence that would make the story you try to tell me here sound plausible.
Try again?

Alrighty then. I'm not posting this here in regards to this specific sanction, but more because of the foot-in-mouth absurdity that this statement implies on a broader level. Far more is at stake than whether the IMG's pride gets bruised, after all. If mercenaries are claiming bounties on you on the forum, it is fairly clear that they are hostile to the group they are working against.

As a matter of a fact, that's one of the server rules. If said mercenaries are wearing a tag, then well, it strikes me that they are a part of an organisation. What do you know? A hostile organisation. Otherwise known as an organisation that is perpetrating hostile actions. I don't know how many different ways I can phrase that.

Honestly, this ruling strikes me more as saving face due to an oversight than actually doing what makes sense or what's actually good for healthy gameplay. Several of us on Skype actually called that response almost word for word before you posted it, Jansen, so at least there's that for predictability.

---

News article library, feedback and content requests.

[Jansen]

Did the people in question give any kind of evidence for what they claim? So far I checked the IMG faction section and a few bounty boards and didnt find anything. I can easily claim things as well, at least giving some kind of evidence appears to be a bit of a different thing Jammi.

---

[jammi]

Did the people in question give any kind of evidence for what they claim? So far I checked the IMG faction section and a few bounty boards and didnt find anything. I can easily claim things as well, at least giving some kind of evidence appears to be a bit of a different thing Jammi.

I didn't think we were allowed to talk in specifics or we'd have our posts deleted? Surely that's a matter to take up with the IMG (which I'm not a member or a representative of).

What concerns me is the fact that you think an organisation needs to be specified in your faction status page (those things barely anyone updates) in order to actually be considered diplomatically hostile. Not based on that group's actual actions in-game. That's the crux of the matter that needs addressing, because it's frankly ridiculous.

If that's the case, how do indies deal with that clause? Are mercenaries immune to indies? Do they all need to manage their own diplomacy page on the forum too?

[Jansen]

Lets bring that once again, I did check the faction section, that includes the status page, the message dump and quite a lot of other threads. I didnt find anything about this group being condiered hostile. Then I went for the bounty boards and had a look at those and didnt find anything there either, might be that I missed something in those, but it shouldnt have been a big problem for the sanctioned party to simply point that out. So this means that there simply is no evidence that I can see, that would back up the claim made by those sanctioned. As said before, its easy to claim something to try to wringle yourself out of a sanction (think of all the funny 'my brother did it' stories), its a different thing to at least back that claim up.
From the way the evidence looks there also was no real indication of hostility towards the reporter, he simply got shot after a few demands and a minimum of RP.
Indies are a different matter as they indeed do not have threads to look things up, thats something we might have to discuss a bit further, but there havent been any problems (at least none that I know of) like this with Indies before, so that simply wasnt necessary yet.

---

[jammi]

Okay, so can I take this as tacit approval to discuss the specifics of a sanction without getting banned or CTE'd? Because this discussion is going to be awfully one sided otherwise.

I'm really not sure why the IMG needed to do anything in this case - the other party was actively shooting them, denoting hostility. If a 'random Freelancer' had been doing the same thing, yes, I would expect them to be able to retaliate to protect their own interests. That's roleplay, that's how consequences work. It's disappointing that instead a vague interpretation of IDs was allowed to be used as a sword and shield to shut that down.

Expecting one side to sit meek and silent without retaliating when they're being attacked is insane. 'Hostility' on a macro level was initiated by the other side. That should be all that's necessary to engage that clause. Furthermore, on a general level not factoring in the wider implications, i.e. indies, just because an incident hasn't happened yet shows a worrying lack of foresight.

Issues should be looked at in their entirety, not based on individual encounters. You guys set precedent with sanctions, remember that.

---

News article library, feedback and content requests.