important Rank Changes [READ]

[Snoopy 1,480 / 15,610]

5 minutes ago, HackingPotato said:

 

I just cannot agree with this. As a server manager, the responsibility of  hiring, training, and/or  demoting admins should be my responsibility without the approval of my division leader. I should not have to wait for a reply by a DL to hire a potential admin, if a DL disagree's with the applicant then they can reply (without being bias) as to why they should or should not be accepted alike everyone else (who has the authority). It is my responsibility to run the server and the servers administrative team, do not restrict me of such duty. 

 

I have to agree with that. I will always let my managers choose their admins without me having to intervene as I trust them. If I want to put a comment in about an admin, or give him a +1/-1 I don't expect it to hold and more weight then an admin/server manager's opinion. Of course, If I have seen a player apply for admin that is completely toxic, abusive and rude then I will deny them straight away, otherwise I just let my managers get on with it.

[Dano 933 / 15,507]

1 hour ago, HackingPotato said:

 

I just cannot agree with this. As a server manager, the responsibility of  hiring, training, and/or  demoting admins should be my responsibility without the approval of my division leader. I should not have to wait for a reply by a DL to hire a potential admin, if a DL disagree's with the applicant then they can reply (without being bias) as to why they should or should not be accepted alike everyone else (who has the authority). It is my responsibility to run the server and the servers administrative team, do not restrict me of such duty. 

 

My post was not intended to put my opinion out there, so don't think I support it completely or whatnot.

The way you're explaining it is how we always handled it in the CS:GO division, and I think it worked quite well.

[Rcool64 1,007 / 16,299]

1 hour ago, Snoopy said:

 

I have to agree with that. I will always let my managers choose their admins without me having to intervene as I trust them. If I want to put a comment in about an admin, or give him a +1/-1 I don't expect it to hold and more weight then an admin/server manager's opinion. Of course, If I have seen a player apply for admin that is completely toxic, abusive and rude then I will deny them straight away, otherwise I just let my managers get on with it.

^

While it's great for DLs to be able to look over people that get accepted to admin, it's obviously not going to work all the time because DLs have to look over multiple servers and it's hard to pay attention to one person among a lot of people. One hard part about being manager+ is decision making.

 

I think we should actually let the admins help out in promoting other admins. If you take a look at the GMOD TTT1 applications, they have a requirement to be sponsored by another admin. This means that an admin actually has to tell someone to go apply and the person that applies would be someone who has a good relationship with the admin (nice to one another). This is actually a PRETTY GOOD idea!

 

Obviously, their fate isn't going to rely on that one admin supporting them. The other admins would give their inputs on the user and even the DL's if that person is someone they have been observing. After a time period (I'de say 3 weeks is plenty of time to think), the manager can make the decision to promote the player to admin.

Edited July 17, 2016 by Rcool64

[Addy 1,648 / 18,732]

1 hour ago, Snoopy said:

 

I have to agree with that. I will always let my managers choose their admins without me having to intervene as I trust them. If I want to put a comment in about an admin, or give him a +1/-1 I don't expect it to hold and more weight then an admin/server manager's opinion. Of course, If I have seen a player apply for admin that is completely toxic, abusive and rude then I will deny them straight away, otherwise I just let my managers get on with it.

I completely agree with this

 

The Division Leader(s) should have about as much impact in choosing an admin as a regular admin does. It's not like the DL's are going to be able to watch every single person who wants to apply, the manager should be the deciding factor. Obviously there are going to be special occasions (I.E. an extremely toxic person applies, community complains, and the manager wants to accept) where the Division Leader(s) would have a higher vote over the manager(s), but other than that, the DL(s) should be as even as an admin for their vote (Unless they're manager of that server, obviously).

[Coolest Cat 1,266 / 14,449]

I think you guys are misunderstanding what I'm proposing.

 

I don't think that DL's should have the final say in who becomes admin because that'd be too much work for them and would be even less productive than our current system. I want managers to actively encourage discussion in admin applications, and that there be a minimum amount of time necessary before accepting an applicant so there's time to discuss them and observe them in-game properly. Managers should be trusted to do this. In the event that they believe that there's a perfect candidate then they can fast track the admin application by talking to a DL to approve the application. The idea is for the DL to make sure that the decision isn't due to bias and is because the applicant is just that good. The DL would ideally look at the application to see if proper discussion was held. If no proper discussion was held then they'd move on to talking to some of the admins and seeing that their decision isn't biased. If the DL feels that more discussion is necessary then they'll leave the application open until the application can be accepted normally. If it's all good then the DL can tell the manager that it's fine.

 

The purpose of the DL is not to babysit the manager but rather to make sure that what looks to be shady activity isn't actually shady. The DL doesn't really have say on whether or not the admin should be accepted or not. The DL has a say on whether or not a quick decision is a rushed one or one that's thought out. 

 

I'd also like to recommend that managers give likely candidates a quick interview before making the final decision to accept them. It's easy for someone to think over difficult questions in an app since they have days to reply. It's much more difficult for them to answer hard questions in the time of an interview. The interview should have some of the admins present to help it along. And some more discussion afterwards would be great as well. 

 

So yeah, the DL doesn't have the final say on whether or not an admin is accepted/denied. They have the final say if a quick decision is a rushed one or a thought out one.

[Ben 2,378 / 31,861]

12 minutes ago, Major_Push said:

I think you guys are misunderstanding what I'm proposing.

 

I don't think that DL's should have the final say in who becomes admin because that'd be too much work for them and would be even less productive than our current system. I want managers to actively encourage discussion in admin applications, and that there be a minimum amount of time necessary before accepting an applicant so there's time to discuss them and observe them in-game properly. Managers should be trusted to do this. In the event that they believe that there's a perfect candidate then they can fast track the admin application by talking to a DL to approve the application. The idea is for the DL to make sure that the decision isn't due to bias and is because the applicant is just that good. The DL would ideally look at the application to see if proper discussion was held. If no proper discussion was held then they'd move on to talking to some of the admins and seeing that their decision isn't biased. If the DL feels that more discussion is necessary then they'll leave the application open until the application can be accepted normally. If it's all good then the DL can tell the manager that it's fine.

 

The purpose of the DL is not to babysit the manager but rather to make sure that what looks to be shady activity isn't actually shady. The DL doesn't really have say on whether or not the admin should be accepted or not. The DL has a say on whether or not a quick decision is a rushed one or one that's thought out. 

 

I'd also like to recommend that managers give likely candidates a quick interview before making the final decision to accept them. It's easy for someone to think over difficult questions in an app since they have days to reply. It's much more difficult for them to answer hard questions in the time of an interview.

 

So yeah, the DL doesn't have the final say on whether or not an admin is accepted/denied. They have the final say if a quick decision is a rushed one or a thought out one. 

I still don't like this whole idea, although usually I plan to make admin application take a while longer.

I expect the admins to give out their opinion and then managers(SouRD and I) give out our votes after each other interview, and then discuss about accepting them and keep eye on them through the server and gametrackers, and getting in touch with them.

Yeah, the admin application like that having all admins to vote within 1 night may be shady, but it isn't. In this system, we ask the admins to give their opinion by voting and giving reasons, and this one is optional: They ask them some question if they never have experience on any servers or just Minecraft.

 

I disagree that DL have to give their opinion if it's still 3 weeks(that if it's the deadline).

If you trust managers like me, then let us handle it even if it's accepted within 1 day with whole admin team putting their opinion on it.

 

My purpose: Have deadline of 2 weeks to accept/deny if half of admin team gave out their opinion. Accept/Deny early if whole admin team votes. 

Edited July 18, 2016 by Benroyjam

[HackingPotato 1,297 / 14,301]

2 hours ago, Dano said:

My post was not intended to put my opinion out there, so don't think I support it completely or whatnot.

The way you're explaining it is how we always handled it in the CS:GO division, and I think it worked quite well.

 

I was not implying that you said it, Dano. I know you were just clarifying what was said. I just felt personally, that the higher ups are taking away the responsibilities of their managers. If you do not trust the managers judgement or you feel you need to restrict them, dont make them manager. 

 

PS

 

Division Leaders need to do more check ups with their managers and talk to the community about the manager and how the players think of them. This way we can demoted inactive and poor managers. So we can make the  management team stronger. 

[Ben 2,378 / 31,861]

After having a chat with Pull, I decided to change my mind. As long the admin team is large, they will be fit for that. But for some servers(like Combat Surf, CS:S DR, CS:S BHop, GO TTT, GO MG, etc.), they won't fit the requirement and will be going by what I'd purpose: Get all admins to cast their vote and opinion, discuss with the applicant, I'm fine with that.

The more admin teams get, the more it will go to be required.

 

I'm down for this proposal as long this fit by what I'm saying. 

 

Now, does Server Manager get FTP Access to FastDL server, and CPanel to the server they manage in case of emergency? 

If they don't get this, it will be hard because I'd have to contact the DLs to restart, or if it's down and it needs to be restarted to be back up, etc.

[Addy 1,648 / 18,732]

20 minutes ago, Benroyjam said:

After having a chat with Pull, I decided to change my mind. As long the admin team is large, they will be fit for that. But for some servers(like Combat Surf, CS:S DR, CS:S BHop, GO TTT, GO MG, etc.), they won't fit the requirement and will be going by what I'd purpose: Get all admins to cast their vote and opinion, discuss with the applicant, I'm fine with that.

If you're suggesting what I think you are, I think that's the complete opposite of what said server(s) should do. If it's a small server with practically no admins (like CS:S bhop), the admin(s)/manager(s), and possibly DL's should talk it out about the applicant, but not in a sense where the DL's have the higher opinion. If it's in the case of a small staff team for a specific server, all of the staff for said server should speak it out as if they had no leverage over each other, as if they're all just admins of it.

 

My post makes sense if what I think you're saying, is that when a server has a small admin team, only the admins should talk it out and discuss/question the person applying. That's kind of hard when a server only has one admin (like CS:S bhop currently)

[HackingPotato 1,297 / 14,301]

1 hour ago, Benroyjam said:

 

Now, does Server Manager get FTP Access to FastDL server, and CPanel to the server they manage in case of emergency? 

If they don't get this, it will be hard because I'd have to contact the DLs to restart, or if it's down and it needs to be restarted to be back up, etc.

 

What? No. What is the propose of a manager without FTP, FastDL and CPannel? These 3 things is what separates the manager from the common head admin. These things should not be removed from the manager, as it is essential for running a server successfully. I strongly disagree with the removal of my FTP. If you dont want a manager to have this access then you obviously do not have enough trust for them and should not be a manager. 

[Ben 2,378 / 31,861]

7 minutes ago, HackingPotato said:

 

What? No. What is the propose of a manager without FTP, FastDL and CPannel? These 3 things is what separates the manager from the common head admin. These things should not be removed from the manager, as it is essential for running a server successfully. I strongly disagree with the removal of my FTP. If you dont want a manager to have this access then you obviously do not have enough trust for them and should not be a manager. 

That's what I actually said in first page.

No purpose of having manager if there will not be any of these kind of stuff. I'm just asking because I don't have access to FastDL, Casual Competitive and Combat Surf CPanel yet. Just FTP access.

[Dano 933 / 15,507]

1 minute ago, Benroyjam said:

That's what I actually said in first page.

No purpose of having manager if there will not be any of these kind of stuff. I'm just asking because I don't have access to FastDL, Casual Competitive and Combat Surf CPanel yet. Just FTP access.

 

I will message Roy about the NFO access for you. I will also send you the Fast DL details on Steam. Next time, tell me about things missing for you, so I can help you with fixing (getting) them.

[Coolest Cat 1,266 / 14,449]

54 minutes ago, HackingPotato said:

 

What? No. What is the propose of a manager without FTP, FastDL and CPannel? These 3 things is what separates the manager from the common head admin. These things should not be removed from the manager, as it is essential for running a server successfully. I strongly disagree with the removal of my FTP. If you dont want a manager to have this access then you obviously do not have enough trust for them and should not be a manager. 

He was asking if managers could get those things.

 

I think that some managers are lacking them right now which I can imagine is annoying.

[MrManslayerX 390 / 6,713]

All said and done, I have to strongly agree with @HackingPotato on all accounts. As I said in my earlier post in this thread, it's good to encourage better communication between the DL and managers of the servers, however the managers need to have the execute-authority when it comes down to manners, of, yanno, their own server.

Of course, as Push said, the DL needs to watch over what goes on in their domain to make sure no poor decisions are made by their managers, but there's a reason the system of DL to Manager exists in the first place- Delegation of duties. As was said, again, the DL can't do everything alone.

However, I am firm on the point that the manager should have the executive, final say on who becomes admin, and when they do, provided they fit the bill. Naturally, if a higher-up has something to say otherwise, it's surely going to be poignant.

Now, when it comes to the admin recruiting process on 'my' server, (I say 'my' because it isn't quite mine... yet ;3) I would look at an application, I leave it open and encourage the current team to render their thoughts on it, and I keep a close eye on that particular person. I watch their activity, I try to gather opinions on that person from those I know are credible, (outside of the admin team,) and I try to get to know that person so that I might properly come to the conclusion if they'd act properly with 'power' or not; and to see if they fit the personality bill.

After that, I would do a brief background check, (in the way of searching for any bans on that person in any other communities,) then I try to cross-reference any claims they make of their claimed abilities or merits.

If they succeed in all of these points, then I would take them through a presentation I made about general admin philosophy for the server, the rules, and ask for their reflections on given topics. I will then propose to them situations they might find themselves in the server...

And finally, if I'm contented with that person, and if nobody has any objections, I will give them Operator status as a trial, then give them time to see if they act with the proper protocol.

All said and done, if I go to add somebody as an admin, I'm damn confident that they're right for the job, and I know what I need to know about them as a person.

Note. I have yet to actually add any new admins to the server... The current admins consist of those that were around previously. The operators are there because they aren't active enough on the forums, or they're under trial to become admin.

Why did I even bother making the post? Lord only knows it's kinda pointless. I suppose I just want to go to show that I, as a manager, am taking due diligence in my duties, and I try to make sure everything's done the right way... The first time.

[Coolest Cat 1,266 / 14,449]

10 minutes ago, MrManslayerX said:

All said and done, I have to strongly agree with @HackingPotato on all accounts. As I said in my earlier post in this thread, it's good to encourage better communication between the DL and managers of the servers, however the managers need to have the execute-authority when it comes down to manners, of, yanno, their own server.

Of course, as Push said, the DL needs to watch over what goes on in their domain to make sure no poor decisions are made by their managers, but there's a reason the system of DL to Manager exists in the first place- Delegation of duties. As was said, again, the DL can't do everything alone.

However, I am firm on the point that the manager should have the executive, final say on who becomes admin, and when they do, provided they fit the bill. Naturally, if a higher-up has something to say otherwise, it's surely going to be poignant.

Now, when it comes to the admin recruiting process on 'my' server, (I say 'my' because it isn't quite mine... yet ;3) I would look at an application, I leave it open and encourage the current team to render their thoughts on it, and I keep a close eye on that particular person. I watch their activity, I try to gather opinions on that person from those I know are credible, (outside of the admin team,) and I try to get to know that person so that I might properly come to the conclusion if they'd act properly with 'power' or not; and to see if they fit the personality bill.

After that, I would do a brief background check, (in the way of searching for any bans on that person in any other communities,) then I try to cross-reference any claims they make of their claimed abilities or merits.

If they succeed in all of these points, then I would take them through a presentation I made about general admin philosophy for the server, the rules, and ask for their reflections on given topics. I will then propose to them situations they might find themselves in the server...

And finally, if I'm contented with that person, and if nobody has any objections, I will give them Operator status as a trial, then give them time to see if they act with the proper protocol.

All said and done, if I go to add somebody as an admin, I'm damn confident that they're right for the job, and I know what I need to know about them as a person.

Note. I have yet to actually add any new admins to the server... The current admins consist of those that were around previously. The operators are there because they aren't active enough on the forums, or they're under trial to become admin.

Why did I even bother making the post? Lord only knows it's kinda pointless. I suppose I just want to go to show that I, as a manager, am taking due diligence in my duties, and I try to make sure everything's done the right way... The first time.

 

I'm kind of confused. You pretty much just said what Hacking was saying. Which is that managers should be trusted to do their own job properly.

[MrManslayerX 390 / 6,713]

@Major_Push *Shrugs* Yanno, I think you're right there. I guess I was just offering my own perspective. That, and, well. I'm in a thoughtful mood. xD

Edited July 18, 2016 by MrManslayerX

[Alucard33rd 1,175 / 15,145]

Sorry to bump this, I have been an intern for a week now, (business managing), I'm bummed I didn't get a chance to say anything in time. Most of my thoughts have already been said. But I like where these suggestions are going. I to have felt GFL dying out a bit because I my recent activity on the forums. If the ideas mentioned by Roy and community are enforced/implemented, that would help GFL a lot. 

 

I wish I could say more and expand on my thoughts but I am on a tight schedules until Saturday when I finally come home. Sorry for the late response. 

[HackingPotato 1,297 / 14,301]

Is there an ETA on when this is going to be implemented?

[Roy 10,832 / 0]

On 7/19/2016 at 1:10 PM, HackingPotato said:

Is there an ETA on when this is going to be implemented?

Hopefully soon.

 

Now, I could reply to each one of the replies in this thread, but that would literally take pages to write in my opinion. I would like to make it more simple. Therefore, yea, just read below

 

Anyway, I am going to go over some things that I would like to make clear.

 

"Wouldn't the Board of Directors be exactly like the old Council rank? If so, that destroys the whole purpose of the rank considering the old Council rank burnt out all of its members within a couple months besides a couple members?"

This wouldn't be like the old Council rank at all? In fact, the rank would be more similar to the current Council rank. What really burnt members out in the old Council rank was the mindset that they had to manage our divisions and game servers (basically like being a Division Leader, Server Manager, and Council member).

 

I think a big mistake I made was not introducing a "description" for each rank from the beginning. Players are still confused about what a Council member does.

 

That said, I would like to make something else clear. The Council or soon-to-be "Board of Directors" are higher than Division Leaders. I've seen people in this thread say DLs have more power than Council members which isn't necessarily true. If there's something wrong with a division (e.g. Division Leaders aren't doing their job, etc), the Council (or BoD) will step in and make changes as they should be. Now, if a Council/BoD isn't doing their job, I will have to step up and handle that.

 

Quoting @Joshy 

Quote

 believe the current Council and Division Leader set up isn't too bad, but the problem you're having is that too many things are coming to you where it should be going to the Division Leaders or Council.  We need to do two things: 1) Don't accept all problems and handle them yourself.  Delegate it.  Be diligent with the chain of command.  "Bla bla bla I have an issue with CS:S" and you respond "Let me invite <Server Manager> into this conversation" or "You can talk to <Server Manager>", then let <Server Manager> talk to a Division Leader ie. Thomas, and then they can talk to you if they cannot handle or need additional help.

Yes, it sounds easy enough, right? Basically, just invite the correct Server Manager in the chat or tell them about it then done! No, it's not. When I constantly get Steam messaged every day about things that Server Managers, Division Leaders, other Developers, and Council members should be dealing with, it piles up. That said, I miss a lot of Steam messages due to me not being online, Steam being bugged, etc. At the end, I even feel guilty about it but the truth is, I just don't have the time to be "redirecting" people. Especially in my current state where I am burnt out.

 

With this new ranking system, I will be visually seen as a Board of Director along with the other Council members. But behind the scenes, I will still have more power than the current team just in case something happens (I sure hope nothing happens again).

 

Yes, I know, regardless of my rank, people will still come to me. But I am hoping this at least helps and more people go to the other Board of Directors. That said, I highly encourage our Server Admins, Server Managers, etc to forward all requests to the other Board of Directors in the future. Once we get a ticket system, things will becomes thirty times easier.. For all of us.

 

Quote

however, it was clear that we did not want Council members to have higher authority than Division Leaders, and they were merely guidance/advisers with diverse ideas and to act as a gap filler where Division Leaders may be absent, one division has a conflict with another, or the issue is related to multiple divisions.

What authority are you talking about here? If a Division isn't in a good state, the Council has every right to step in and take actions to fix it. Actions include demoting Division Leaders, replacing Division Leaders with new ones, etc. The Council does have more power than the Division Leaders, they always have and I don't ever remember outright saying "Division Leaders have more power than Council members with their Division". However, I may be wrong, I don't really know what I say anymore...

 

Now, when it comes to server rules, etc that's where I can see the Council not having as much authority as Division Leaders. For example, the Purge incident a few months ago, etc. In a perfect world, the Council and Division Leaders would work together and come to an agreement, but sadly, it doesn't seem like GFL is anywhere near perfect.

 

I will put more thought into this, but keep in mind, my initial thought for the new Council rank was to offload our divisions and game servers from the new Council rank. Therefore, making the rank "less" stressful and time consuming. But I never said the the Council doesn't have more power than the Division Leaders.

 

I will put more thought into this and I hope to come up with a conclusion in the future. As of right now, all I can say is the Council does have the power to promote and demote Division Leaders.

 

"Why are the Division Leaders getting the final say for Server Admin promotions?"

I believe our definitions for "final say" are different. When I think of "final say" I think of Division Leaders being required to approve all Server Admin applications, which isn't what I said at all. Now, yes, before the one and a half week mark, the Division Leaders must approve the Admin application. However, after that, the Server Manager has the ability to promote them. The reason for this is to make the Admin Application a discussion instead of a bunch of useless "+1's" from Server Admins that are their "friends" and only care about them getting Server Admin because they are their "friend".

 

If you need an admin promoted ASAP, you can get the Division Leader's approval and promote them before the one and a half week mark. Oh yeah, for those of you complaining about this worries me, a lot. It's really honestly not a big deal to get approval from the Division Leaders before the one and a half week mark. That said, if you start abusing this and go to the Division Leaders every time, even though it isn't an emergency, don't be surprised if you get called out or demoted...

 

In the end, if you think about it, the Division Leaders will always have the "final say" over admin applications. If they see an admin application from a completely toxic player, they have the power to deny them. Obviously, the Division Leaders shouldn't be automatically denying Admin Applications based on personal opinions/situations and if they do, this should be looked into by the Council (or Board of Directors).

 

"Why aren't we trusting our own Server Managers to manage our Admin staff?"

Oh trust me, I agree, "all" Server Managers should be trusted and at the moment, I believe they are by our Division Leaders. But from what I've seen, there are many Server Managers that aren't doing their job correctly. For example, promoting admins only because they are "friends" with them, etc. I see so many Server Admins that aren't active on the forums, etc and I always wonder why they are being promoted by our "trusted" Server Managers.

 

There will always be bad Server Managers and bad Server Admins, but the problem here is I don't see anything being done about them. Nothing has been done about them for months, etc. Servers are actively dying due to mismanagement and I am absolutely sick of it. One year ago, GFL had the top servers in the world, but now, I only see one server in the top 50. We used to have at least 5 servers in the top 50 (probably more).

 

Now, not all of this is our Server Managers fault. In fact, a lot of it is Valve's fault especially in the CS:GO division. However, I am still seeing many servers mismanaged.

 

Off-Topic:

"Roy, all you care about is server population and not about the server's quality..."

 Yes, I do care about the server population. In fact, I feel that is the most important thing. But you're missing something, in order to have great server population, you must have a high quality server. Well, unless your server is a cheating CS:GO server, which ours aren't. But yes, you should get the point.

 

I want to make one thing clear and after talking to @Dano the other day, I highly agree with the approach. Our ex-top servers were popular for a very long time. What "content" did we have on our servers that attracted many players? Well, let's list them:

• Appealed to a majority of the player base in the selected game mode.
• Had less-strict rules but offered options such as self-mute, etc (should add self-gag support in the future) so that users can self-manage players they dislike.
• Great admins that were active on the server and in the community, friendly to everybody and accepted anybody in their "TeamSpeak 3" channel, and finally, actively recruited members to our forums and TeamSpeak 3 server.
• High-performance.

 

Yes, those four things held a majority of our server population for a long time. Although "custom" content helps, it isn't required to manage a successful server, well at least on non-GMod servers. In my opinion, when I make game servers in CS:GO, TF2, etc I like making them simple. I absolutely hate loading servers up with useless plugins that doesn't offer much on the server and only possibly slows it down. Only add the plugins you need that will make great changes to the server's environment.

 

I just thought I would say that. I don't like seeing our games servers loaded up with useless plugins potentially affect performance, custom downloadable files making download times longer, etc.

 

Overall

That's it... Feel free to reply, I already know some of you will disagree with what I had to say. I just wanted to clear things up the best I could. The truth is, not everybody will agree with these new ranks and I surely hope nobody "resigns" these new rank changes. If so, then that highly disappointing me.

 

P.S. I apologize if this looks rushed. I am currently tired and tonight wasn't the best night to post a big post.

 

#RoyOut

 

Thanks.

[Roy 10,832 / 0]

And as usual, when I say "Oh, I don't want to make this post like three pages long", it does becomes three pages. Shaking my head...

 

Might as well consider this another weekly update.

 

Thanks.