• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won



Expires: Never (Permanent)

Joshy last won the day on July 30

Joshy had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,821 Diamond 4

About Joshy

Display Name History

View Changes
  1. Someone wants some likes. That's why Charmy makes haikus. I think that's alright.
  2. If you also wouldn't mind, then could you share some detail about the candidate party at your school? Adding a story or vibe to the logos... it's just so much better and more fun in my opinion
  3. Would you like just any generic logo, or are there specifications to cover? What are the specifications or requirements should there be any?
  4. Would you be against posting your request in case someone would be willing to do it for free?
  5. You can do haikus? I think I can do them too. I'm too lazy to.
  6. We're worried about people accepting or denying members, but not very concerned about them having mute or ban on a server? This is a very interesting group. edit: I'd also like to say that I'm not worried about how quickly or slowly we're going through member applications. I made this suggestion because I think we're putting a lot of time into vetting Member Acceptor applications when Server Admins and above are trusted with more risky/damaging permissions. I think even with the concern of a large Server Admin team, then this idea could be trialed with smaller groups like Senior Admins or Server Managers (for goodness sake they have Root on their respective servers) while continuing the case by case applications for other groups.
  7. I believe Server Admins and above, and even Operation roles (Creative Team, Developer), should automatically be able to Accept Members. If this idea is too radical, then I suggest at least dipping your toe in the water with higher positions such as Head/Senior Admins, and to work our way into this suggestion should it show promise. I think applications for Member Acceptor and the review process is silly. I am very confused about the high standards we have for Member Acceptors, and what the consequence of too many Member Acceptors are. How can we possibly trust someone with Server Admin rights, but they can't even accept and welcome people into the community as Members. Members typically receive small perks on the game servers and the Server Admins are already facilitating their activity there, and so I think it should be okay for Server Admins to determine whether or not someone could receive those small perks. More damage can be done with their permissions on the servers compared to being Member Acceptors, and so - to me - it's like allowing someone to carry a loaded machine gun and not allowing them to use a butter knife at the table. Our standards for accepting Members are pretty low and I don't think it will be making a U-turn any time soon. This is okay by me because they don't receive huge benefits for being a Member anyways. I think it's correct to prevent hackers from receiving these benefits and representing our community, and people with too many bans, but lets stipulate this worst case scenario such that a large team of Server Admins begins to make mistakes in accepting these people: So what? These people will likely get caught and banned, and they wont be representing the community neither receiving their perks anymore should that be the case. I cannot think of one case where accepting some losers as members has been a noticeable burden to the community, and these people can create chaos in game and the forums without member perks. We have accepted members and even Server Admins who hacked or was eventually banned, and so the filtering system doesn't work well anyways. I think allowing Server Admins to really welcome Members into the community can help build a strong relationship with the players and the voluntary role could improve their activity on the forums should people ask to accept them into the community (ie. "[PLAYER:] How do I get Member perks?" "[ADMIN:] Let me hook you up!") This looks beneficial to me. The amount of work put into this prevention doesn't look worth it to me, but the (low) amount of risk is should GFL pursue this suggestion.
  8. Your interpretation of my point of view is flawed. Just for a brief example: I am firmly against this. I strongly encourage a cycle of leadership and constantly say, that we shouldn't be waiting for the most ideal or perfect candidate. Potential is a far more valuable measure for me, and so: Someone who may not be perfect for the role right now, but could be in the future, is likely a fitting candidate in my point of view. This perspective on candidacy includes inexperienced members. I often aim to have them on the teams long before others consider it, and to prophylactic-ly fill needs before they arise. I am often running against the wind on those topics and I know I often have a very unique or radical perspective. I'd share with you these posts, but I am certain most of them are stashed away in outdated threads on forum categories I no longer have permissions for. Next, I would like to re-emphasize that I did not post my point of view here. Thanks.
  9. My twin would strongly relate to you although she's a little bit older than you. Welcome to the community.
  10. I highly encourage not speaking on my behalf. I didn't post my point of view here for one, and two, I feel strongly misunderstood. Thanks for posting your ideas, though
  11. You're right: Someone from the external sabotaged one of the CS:S servers. I'm not meaning to suggest my own preference or ideas about external leadership, but I am also recalling an event or two where long time leaders, trusted members, and people who grew with GFL who sabotaged our CS:S servers. Is there always an element of trust or risk involved, and does choosing from within or externally dominate given our past events? I'm not so sure. Again: This isn't to suggest my own point of view, but I'm adding to the dialogue. I think there are some interesting thoughts posted above. edit: When was that established? I don't recall seeing this. Is it just inferred? You are correct so far as what has been done for those specific positions, but is it impossible or not considered in future decisions or choices? I've seen a lot of comments about the lack of talent, and so I wonder if there will be a point where the candidate pool may need to broaden.
  12. That's pretty bold to explain your situation. Good luck! I thought I may have had a hernia at the bellybutton. I don't have an outie, but my bellybutton is not very deep into my belly and the top region of it sticks out slightly. I'm no longer convinced it's a hernia. I was horrified about your time off last time, but you have a bigger and more committed team than before, and so I have more confidence for it this time. Hopefully you'll take some time off of work too. It looks to me like they require some heavy lifting.
  13. Who said anything about whether or not GFL is doing it? The question is on how you feel about the concept.
  14. We've been chatting about it in the Shout box and it sounds like some people want to let their ideas off their shoulders, and so I think it's worth a thread. What do you guys think about staff coming from external? External is meaning other communities or organizations ie. a Server Admin with some programming experience at another community takes on a Server Manager role here.
  15. I recall the frustrations of looking into deleted posts. I don't agree with deleting, but I like the idea of hiding or moving it to an archive forum hidden from the greater community. I think clutter is an acceptable and manageable trade-off, and it's worth offering forum members tools available at other communities and social media sites in order to be competitive. It baffles me that the staff look so much into hardware and programming, and it's great to maintain and improve the back-end, but show something for it if you can.