Emeritus/Trusted Basic Permissions

**Joshy** · September 5, 2017

I'll admit it's not a big issue and you could continue the way it is although it's something I've commonly seen in other organizations (both other communities and professionally), and I don't understand why GFL should fall behind: Basic Permissions for their past staff members. It's not meaning they are full blown staff with all of the game/forum permissions or root access, but they are able to handle some basic situations their self without the need to submit an application neither a report. It could be a soft implementation of @Major_Push's "Global Operators", which was commonly combated by "trust issues", and the same reasoning used for "Global Admin" with the off- and rare chance of someone abusing it could lead to appropriate punishment.

Player report - sleepycastle938 & DJ Khaled by @PB-n-J(<-- this recent thread prompted the suggestion)

Dano's TeamSpeak Admin Application by @Dano

Bigtime's TS Admin Application by @Bigtime388

Shuruia's TeamSpeak 3 Admin Application by @Shuruia

The examples are building up and these examples above are not the only ones, but were easy and publicly available. I can think of other times such as Cypher using executive authority to give Floopy TS rights (before TS Admin) and people such as Kim and denros continuing their involvement despite their title or status.

The strongest case I could see against this is someone who was demoted, like me, and I'd be fine with that (not having permissions) because I don't want it for myself anyways, but I think the other guys deserve it for sure. It would be comforting for your current staff members as well to know they wouldn't lose complete control upon ensuring the cycle of leadership.

Edited September 5, 2017 by Joshy
Removed the word certainly

Hello. · September 6, 2017

To be honest, it's a novel idea.

I'd more suggest it to be handled on a "case by case" basis.

Pretty much hits the nail on the head, though.

Edited September 6, 2017 by PB-n-J

Shuruia · September 7, 2017

@Joshy

No red post yet, so I'll weigh in on this subject.

I truly appreciate your sentiment, but what you think about the "other guys" deserving basic powers is irrelevant for two reasons. The first reason is due to GFL's culture of trust; the second reason is due to the sake of raw efficiency and security.

Whilst you are correct in identifying the nuance between basic permissions and not so basic permissions, it would be prudent to observe just how profoundly the .ru & SoJa incident has had an effect on GFL's culture of trust. More specifically, it has affected Roy on a personal level and has inevitably trickled down to the rest of GFL. Even more damning, this incident was only the second of its kind to affect Roy and consequently GFL; the EG incident with people such as Viper back in very early 2012 also gives ample reason as to why trust is more valuable than diamonds within this community. I don't have to make this inference by myself, since Roy has admitted this to multiple people at one time or another.

What I'm getting at is that this type of culture does not require a modicum of distrust to be warranted by anything concrete. Let us posit that you are a higher-up that happens to be excommunicated wearing a cloak of disgrace, one that you only bear for minor reasons after the fact. That is damning. Why? Well, we already know that it's not because you've damaged the community, nor can it be due to the higher-ups having reasonable grounds to suspect that you want to damage the community. No, it's because they dislike you. They dislike you because you've given them reason to dislike you. That's all they need to give you the short end. And to be fair, If they aren't absolutely sure that your retention of even BASIC powers would be purely to the benefit of GFL, then they have no practical obligation to lease said powers to you. As for the moral obligation, it was never there to begin with.

I know this because a certain higher-up (whose name I shall omit) said the following to me in Discord:

Now this was strange to me, given that I'm vastly overqualified to be a TS3 admin. I wanted to know what the reasons were, so I asked for them. No reply, but this person did say something in an earlier context that could also apply to the present situation:

I won't go into too much detail about it, but on the day before I decided to put my dog down, someone that was close to Roy sent me a chat log of Roy saying something that gave me a reason to be rather peeved. And peeved I was! I took a knife to his ego because I knew he deserved it, but Roy and his circle naturally wouldn't see it that way.

So I gave them a reason to dislike me, which certain people nowadays would covertly use to justify why I (or someone like me) would not receive something as basic as TS3 admin. I'm just one individual out of many that will pass through the higher-ups, so try to imagine what they must consider for every single person that ever passed through that group. The circumstances between each individual are likely to be different from the last. Even the four examples that you listed vary greatly in the circumstances that each individual has found themselves in. A case by case basis for such matters will probably remain the norm as long as it remains the most popular.

This is the first reason.

Speaking of a case by case basis...

On 06/09/2017 at 1:43 AM, PB-n-J said:

I'd more suggest it to be handled on a "case by case" basis.

That would be a suggestion to maintain the status quo, which is the one that GFL has practically held since its inception. This is typically a good system to use when you consider the fact that leasing powers—even basic ones—to individuals simply by virtue of them being ex-higher-ups will inevitably cause problems down the line. Even without historical context, it is simply safe to assume that at least one ex-higher-up will think about abusing his/her powers. Why deal with the fallout when you can simply prevent it altogether?

This is the second reason.

**Joshy** · September 8, 2017

Thank you all for your feedback. I've grown weary and do not plan to champion this idea although this is not meant to reflect my value of my ideas.

edit:

I will add in case a Server Manager may like this idea, and especially for Server Managers of low population or short staff servers, that this may be worth experimenting with as an alternative to those open enrollment -like threads. Create a group in your server ie. "Emeritus" or "Global Operator" and add the permissions you consider to be basic or low-risk. You'd have to do it manually (still case-by-case at your discretion by these means), but it could be a model or softer entry for the idea.

edit:

I'd like to tag @Winter in this given the recent thread. It's not so much to do it exactly the way as suggested above if you may not like it entirely, but I believe the suggestion would be beneficial and could be implemented with their own twists or amends should they not like it entirely. You can still use the general concept or framework. Let's stipulate someone suggests "Give all Server Managers some type of Global Operator role" and you think it's a bad idea because Counter-Strike Server Managers might be comfortable with GMOD, then you could give it a go with all GMOD Server Managers or even select Server Managers for beta testing. Does it have to take up "open seats?" I don't think so. You could softly implement this idea to support your server in adjunct to recruiting new and concentrated staff for the roles you are seeking.

Edited September 18, 2017 by Joshy
added notes

Winter · September 18, 2017

+1

I think this should be given a chance. If trust issues will be a problem, then we can simply revoke them, and if it becomes too big of an issue, it's not like this is a permanent modification.

Given that each server I run is understaffed and I've had to resort to volunteers several times, I think having other staff potentially have some degree of monitoring power to keep servers of their fellows running is a fantastic idea.

I'm still keeping my recent thread though

Yeah, +1.

Edit: I forgot to mention, I do believe that if a former staff is demoted/leaving from the midst of drama, then maybe emeritus power should not be given to them, but there are people that could still be of help to us, even if they aren't exactly Director or some other higher up position anymore.