×
  • Sign In

    • Sign In



    Or sign in with one of these services

  • Sign Up
Jump to content

Forest

Members
  • D
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content Count

    3854

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    73

Article Comments posted by Forest

  2. Posted

    Also, should I talk to anyone? I wasn't aware of this one particular change, and can't say I'm exactly 110% ready for it. I just assumed I would have been told beforehand if this was going to happen.

    Uhhhhhhh, curious to know if Elcark was ever approached regarding the position prior to the Promo/Demo @virr (and co). Reason being that if a Member is earning the position, they have the choice to accept or decline the offer in advance. Just worrisome to see Members being promoted when they may not even want the position to begin with (not saying this is the case but I'm genuinely curious).

     

    Otherwise, congratulations to those promoted and my condolences to those who were demoted; however, do keep in mind that [unless explicitly stated] you can always earn that position back, should you choose to. Don't let it bring you down, seize the moment and take it as an opportunity to prove to the Higher-Ups that you can make a change for the better!

     

    Would also like to comment that I'm pretty ecstatic with the very civilized and otherwise good behavior demonstrated up to this point from those who were demoted in this thread. Hopefully this will continue as it really displays a mature attitude that certainly holds the dignity and respect that those have established while Moderating here at Xeno Gamers.

     

    Good job everyone! :coffee:

  3. Posted

    Just a thought: whenever an update is published here on the Forums, maybe one should be Announced via the Xeno Gamers Steam Group? Not as in depth, just like a short bulleted list of updates and a link to the thread or something. Ensures deeper saturation and it might encourage more Players to apply, especially with the latest Member Submission(s) update.

  6. Posted

    how about we instead make being a member worth something again by reverting the required amount of vouches back to 10?

    Is this actually true?

    Yep. Standards used to be higher. Vouches that held no weight or didn't offer any sort of insight (IE. The dreaded "+1 cool guy, good warden") weren't counted toward the applicant's overall +1s. Nowadays, it looks like reducing the number of vouches required is either a cause-and-effect introduced by other Divisions lowering their required vouches a while back or just an effort to gain more active Members, but I digress.

     

    I don't know, I can understand why it's been reduced, but at this point it's becoming more of a chore than it is an honour to be a full Member of Xeno Gamers. That is to say, 4 vouches (even 5) are so incredibly easy to obtain that it's literally going to be little to no effort to actually get into Xeno Gamers; especially with the kind of vouches that I see on a daily basis (two-word vouches reign).

     

    By no means am I questioning the reasoning behind changing the vouching process as I'm sure it isn't purely due to the reasons I mentioned. I'm just worried that becoming an actual Member of Xeno Gamers will [eventually] mean little to nothing aside from gaining access for Staff consideration.

  7. Posted

    Any potential of referrals carrying over to xG's FaceBook/Twitter/YouTube accounts (think incentives for liking/sharing/etc)? Or, alternatively, raffles that reward multiple vouches once the user has subscribed to our YouTube channel, Liked/Shared on FaceBook, etc. It could be a good way to gain some much needed attention and traction through our social media accounts.

  10. Posted

    for clarity sake no, because then for older bans it says they were banned by Admin Deleted

    Ahh, I gotcha. Fair enough.

    What's the issue with removing people who won't come back or who have been gone for years?

    It's a coin-toss really. When a perm'd player comes back to post a Ban Protest, and (90% of the time) the ban reason is incredibly vague or is lacking in detail, the only other way to determine what happened is the Staff Member who dealt the ban providing some context (assuming he/she even remembers or is around to even post). If the Admin is removed like Chrono said, they won't appear on Source Bans and at that point Staff will only have the offender's facts/information to rely on validity.

     

    Sort of related, but one of the reasons I'm pushing for Staff to include either "int mf" or "acc mf" (intentional mass freekill vs accidental mfk) in their ban reason is to avoid situations exactly like that from occurring in the future. Either way, if possible, Staff should (at the very least) be detailed in their perm bans as a precautionary measure; just on the off-chance that the player posts a Ban Protest.

  11. Posted

    it would also clean up sourcebans if we can remove all those people that have "admin" because it just gives them different custom flags in it for TF2 donations (there are literally like 420 different sourceban power groups for it, donator, super donator, ultra donator, mod xyz admin xyz)

    Speaking of which, I've been meaning to ask about this. Is there any way to completely remove those who have been added to Source Bans as Staff and have since been either demoted or have stepped down? Just curious.

  15. Posted

    Here's the truth of it.

     

    The rule was in place forever. The rule was also ignored forever. Not once since I've been on the decision-making team for TF2 staff has donations EVER been considered when we picked candidates for staff.

     

    Arguing that it is, in some form, a quality control mechanic is erroneous. It hasn't been a deciding factor for a good, long time. The rule was being ignored, so we petitioned to have it removed.

     

    Initially, we met with resistance on @Rhododendron's part, but something changed his mind and he agreed to have it removed.

     

    It was never a paid position. It was also never a deciding factor. It was a useless rule that wasn't being enforced, so we nixed it. That's all.

     

    Try not to make a big deal out of it.

    I don't think it could have been ignored to begin with though. Users literally cannot submit a Staff Submission without donating; they don't gain access to the actual submission form page to submit one without having donated first. That is, if you're a new user, and you click on "Post a New Thread" in the Moderator Submission section, it will (or rather, would) lead you to an error page that says they don't have the necessary permissions. So, anyone who ever posted a Staff Submission post donation change back then, was already eligible for a Staff rank. Higher-Ups didn't really have to look into their donation history at all. That being said, this is only assuming that once someone donates they are automatically given Donator rank (without a Higher-Up having to assign it to them).

     

    Though I agree with Scoot, what's done is done. It's no longer a thing, so lets just bury the hatchet :coffee:

  17. Posted

    I guess I see it that way since I also feel that the whole idea of staff applications' existance is really dumb, to be honest if someone wants staff they should just be picked by the higher ups and that should be it.

    I really don't see the need for anyone to make a staff submission since there can be no good reason for it other than the guy being too impatient or unfit for staff, we already eliminate the staff submissions from people who are inactive and unfamiliar with higher ups so I honestly think it's the most unnecessary option we have on the forums

    From my perspective, there are a few reasons why Staff Submissions are still a thing:

     

    [spoiler=Staff Submissions]

    1. Community Input

     

    It's always important to heed what the community has to say about something, whether it be in regards to a rule change or new Staff Member(s). Reason being that it introduces a third party to provide their input on the matter; an outside perspective that may differ from that of a Higher-Up's. It also gives players/users who only have Member status a chance to give their input on something that may very well influence the Servers (or even clan). In other words, it gives the 'Member' rank an important air around it whereas a 'Registered' user's input wouldn't be as influential. Such is the case with every other form of application/protest in terms of 'Member' influence.

     

    2. Inadequacy/Shortage of Staff

     

    During times where the Staff pool is shallow, the application process becomes crucial in boosting those numbers. It allows Higher-Ups to specifically monitor potential applicants as opposed to having to determine who is deserving of a position. It also eliminates the potential of a player declining the offer to become a Moderator/Administrator as an applicant wants to have the position. This can really cut down on the time it would take to promote new Staff since not only would there be community input to aid in developing a portfolio of the applicant, but as aforementioned, the Higher-Ups can eliminate one step (finding potential applicants) which can take anywhere from a few days to a week or more. Long story short, it [potentially] cuts down on the time spent trying to find new Staff.

     

    3. Establishing Interest in Player

     

    There are times where players who have an extensive knowledge of the Server rules slip through the cracks and are never really noticed by the Higher-Ups. However unlikely, this is bound to happen, and when it does it makes these applications a chance at getting that player's name out there. Even if that player's application is denied, it still gives the Higher-Ups an option down the road should they be lacking in Staff.

     

    4. Extra Income

     

    This one is a given, it's what we're all discussing at the moment. Every little bit helps, even if it's a "donation" of $5 toward gaining the ability to post a Staff Submission.

     

     

    In the end, having the option to submit an application is better than not having the option at all; even if players are inclined to "donate" (still really think this should be considered a fee).

     

    That all being said, I brought this up in a comment and I'm interested to know whether Paid Moderator/Administrator positions are still a thing @Rhododendron . If so, I recommend an addition of it be made in the "Moderator Submission Rules" thread (maybe a discussion had on whether it should still be a thing or not among the Higher-Ups; and if so whether it should have some sort of rules).

     

    Also still curious on a before/after of the Moderator Rules, honestly can't tell what is new and what isn't.

     

    EDIT: Also noticed that the rule on "donations" was reworded which is great, but it is still hiding the fact that you have to donate in order to post a Staff Submission in the first place ("weighing favourably" is like saying "it wouldn't hurt to", but it is actually necessary in order to post a Staff Submission to begin with and may confuse Players/Members). *Note: This is assuming that Players are still unable to actually post a Staff Submission, if they are able to now (non-donators now have access to the Staff Submission form), then please disregard this edit.

     

    Another EDIT: Hate to be an annoyance, I know this post is long enough as it is, but for the record; if a Higher-Up could post what they've changed or included in threads like the "Moderator Rule" one, it would be greatly appreciated as opposed to just making an edit and expecting everyone to know about it afterwards without little to no warning or announcements.

  18. Posted

    The thing is, I don't see it as just buying the staff application privilege. You're donating for the clan's upkeep after all, which you get awarded with the ability to apply for staff membership, in the case you are too impatient to show people that you are active and staff-worthy.

    You're misunderstanding what a donation essentially is. A donation is a contribution made to benefit a cause, in this case to further the growth of Xeno Gamers. That's great and all, but donating is typically done of free-will and not because someone is obliged to do it. In this scenario, in order to just apply for Staff Membership, a user has to donate. There are no 'ifs' 'ands' or 'buts', if you don't "donate" then you don't have the privilege to apply for Staff. This, in and of itself, isn't donating. It's just masking the underlying "if you want this perk, you have to pay to get it" mentality. No matter how it's worded, people are being forced to have to pay to submit a Staff Application, plain and simple.

     

    I get that it's a way to deter any 'bad' applicants and it keeps those who actually care about the community in mind, but I just don't agree with labeling it "donating" when it really isn't. At the very least, it should be reworded to emphasize that it's a one-time fee, not a donation.

     

    All that aside, I'm curious to know (I asked in Shout Box last night but didn't see a reply) if there is a before/after comparison of the updates, or if the changes could be highlighted in some way so that Members can compare? Also, @Stickz for his opinion on the matter (assuming he has not been made aware) as there is a thread in the Nuclear Dawn division that does not require donations for Staff Submissions.

  23. Posted

    if someone is already member prior to this, will they be eligible for removal of membership..?

    I imagine this only applies to any Member Submissions that were submitted before the creation of this thread, not to any current Members. The only reason for activity on TeamSpeak is just to foster a sense of community. It also greatly helps with the vouching process when you get to know people and users are far more likely to receive a vouch from someone they try to connect with on forums or on TeamSpeak rather than simply asking for vouches ingame.

  24. Posted

    Won't lie, I partially agree with what Bach brought up. While this will make accepting Members a much faster process, it seems like the main factor here is being overlooked; this being that once someone gains Membership, they represent XenoGamers even more-so than an xG-Rep. My point being that it's crucial to have community input on someone before they gain Membership. The easier it is to get in, the easier it is for that person to potentially damage xG from the inside (through either wrong representation or to extremes such as gaining a Staff rank and abusing). 10 vouches wasn't impossible, you just had to actually try to get them. Whether that be actively playing on the Servers and making a name for yourself, or by getting involved in the community through forums or TeamSpeak (which is a whole 'nother matter as most people are confined within community channels). Now I know you could argue that by saying "Oh, but Forest, if they're so bad they'll just get -1 vouches anyways" but do keep in mind that it is incredibly easy to mask almost anything online, especially personality or behaviour. Just food for thought.

     

    I'm also curious as to how Membership will work now that we no longer have Division specific qualifications. It was mentioned that the guidelines/rules are currently being worked on so if the following comments/questions will be addressed later then ignore the following:

     

    If Membership qualifications are for a global Membership, will activity still work in the same way (IE. active in say, TF2)? And if this does go through, should the Division Manager(s) or Leader(s) really have a say in these new applicants? Seems to me that if it does go through, it would now fall under the jurisdiction of the Community Leaders. After all, Division Managers/Leaders are supposed to deal directly with content/issues/players that directly influence their Division. Seeing as how new applicants would not influence this any longer, Member Submissions would only be dealt with by Community Leaders (with community input of course). I get that 'segregation' is the biggest concern here, but I'm not so sure that altering the Member Submission guidelines will really influence things in the intended way, if anything it just creates more work, which brings me to my next concern.

     

    Monitoring forum activity and TeamSpeak activity sounds simple enough and looks good on paper, but keep in mind that Member Submissions are cumulative; that is, we don't just get one submission after the next so much as we get multiple in one day. That being said, monitoring all of these applicants may put a huge strain on the Higher-Ups, I mean I personally would not be able to keep up. Especially given that, as previously mentioned, these applicants would be monitored by the Community Leaders which are few in number as is.

     

    I may just be looking too deep into this, but it's still somewhat of a concern because chances are that if things do become too much to handle, these newly enacted rules will just slip back to the former lax ways of handling Member Submissions.