Jump to content
 Share

Roy

My Thoughts On GFL (More Informal)

Recommended Posts

Posted  Edited by Nick

I feel like I have to butt in on the CR thing even though I tried to stand clear of it. First of all, I am surprised that people think Council and CRs don't do anything; unless something has drastically changed, that's simply not true, haha. What I will be saying here will be a representation of my thought process when I wrote the proposal describing Council and my experience as a member of Council. I realize, that it might not be truly reflective of the current Council.

 

What is Council?

Council is not supposed to be a fast-moving entity that handles day-to-day issues albeit it has turned into this a few times. That's why we have directors; they're supposed to handle day-to-day operations implementing the Council's wishes. Council as a whole was not supposed to really be more than the group of people with decision-making authority at monthly meetings (or emergency meetings if necessary). You can kinda compare it to the political structure of a lot of countries: Council is parliament and the Directors are the government.

 

To motivate this design: In the past, we had something called Trusted which was a big group consisting of current higher-ups and many former staff member. It was never codified that this group had actual power, but they did have a lot of influence. Lacking structure and being this big, it was often a long and tiring process to get things through Trusted. The idea with Council was pretty much to slim Trusted down and codify authority to kinda get the best of both worlds: broad opinions and somewhat decent decision-making speeds.

 

Council is also placed in the very top so that it can manage directors. This should further motivate why it should be a broad group of people in Council; Council as a whole has a lot of power. Well, I am not sure what processes @Aurora might have implemented after she became the owner, so take this with a grain of salt, haha.

 

CRs

Time to get back on track... The reason I have tried to stay clear of the CR thing is that 1) I don't feel like what I have to add will put CR in a good light and 2) my experience with CRs in Council has been very positive, so I am likely biased. I don't think the most recent cavalcade of run-off elections is necessarily a sign of a bad system or failure, but rather the system working and Council taking responsibility for their image.

 

I can see a lot of people seem to believe that CR was supposed to combat all favoritism (sorry if I am oversimplifying). To discuss this, I will quickly introduce what I had in mind when I came up with the concept. Firstly, I wanted to do an experiment to see how a democratic vote would work in GFL. I will be honest that I did not expect the experiment to be approved and for it to keep going for this long. The core idea was to get outside perspectives and try to solve an ancient problem of GFL's decision-making authority consisting  of old, disgruntled, retired staff members, haha. From my time in Council, I was generally very happy with it.

 

So to say that the idea behind CR is to end favoritism... eeeh, I cannot say that I agree. But for the sake of argument, let's assume that it was to combat favoritism among higher-ups. Then I'd argue that nepotism among higher-ups is a lot worse than favoritism among the entire community. There is no good way to get around this; it is for sure a flaw in all democracy.

 

Voting process

I will just touch on a few opinions concerning the voting process that has been brought up in this thread. I am surprised to hear that some believe taking the time to look into a person and get to know them before putting their vote down is bias and favoritism. My understanding of both words requires that the act is unfair. Don't get me wrong, favoritism and bias will occur in non-anonymous voting, it is simply avoidable, but taking your time to make a fair assessment of a person and their history should not be considered bias or favoritism. (I know some will argue that all acts are biased in some way, but that is counter-productive reasoning which will get us nowhere; in the end we are only human.)

 

I get the appeal in doing anonymous voting for CR. However, I think it would be disastrous since we would fully rely on the candidate being fully honest and having a ton of self-insight. Alternatively, a higher-up would do an op-ed of the candidate or similar, but then we've circled back to strong higher-up favoritism again. I simply don't see a sane way to implement it, but the concept would be very nice to have.

 

Sigh... and I wrote another essay.

Edited by Nick

Wanna know what I am up to? Take a look at my personal Trello board or my cards on the Development Trello board!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Posted  Edited by Pachimo

I can agree with some of what you said, primarily with your lack of motivation and self-confidence issues. I remember the long talks we'd have in days like those where it was essentially me trying to cheer you up and help you out and to try and get you back on your feet. It is hard to stay motivated for something you don't believe you've done particularly great, but you failed to see your strengths as well. But you don't need to be good at confrontations to be a good leader; that's why you had your staff, this applies to anyone. People shouldn't have to do things entirely alone. Now to address my opinion on some things you've brought up.

 

GFL Politics/CRs

I see where you're coming from and it can definitely rub people off the wrong way but you must admit that in a way it is kind of essential. While the way it might be done can be the issue, I do feel it's important for the community to vote for somebody they deem is a good candidate for the position and while the playerbase is not always right, they are simply more comfortable with certain people than others to talk to. I believe it's a position of power where people should feel more inclined to go to for issues and then they will either handle it themselves if they can or relay the information to their higher-ups, like HR. As you know the Directors are busy with a range of different tasks around all the community and they shouldn't exactly put up with silly drama often (I am guilty of this too, to which I apologize). If their purpose is different then forgive me for being mistaken.

 

Point is, the community should be allowed a say in something like this as it is to help them.

 

SMs, Head Admins, Trust etc.

I disagree with getting rid of Head Admins and making them all SAs. Head Admins have different responsabilities and stuff in different servers, but to me Head Admins are senior server staff that helps the newer server staff with guidelines, helping them learn the commands and stuff alongside the SM. While it should also be up to the SM to assist with stuff like this, they aren't always available nor do some choose to, hence they get a Head Admin to help out with the playerbase more as well as staff. They're like the SMs assistant in a variety of ways, while SAs are to help mostly with moderating the server. It's not for everyone, and SMs have the option of not getting a Head Admin if they really don't want or need one. Some want and like the idea of HA, some don't. It's all fair.

 

Now as for some SMs wanting some stuff to be run by them first, most of the time it's not exactly a trust issue. SMs are picked to run a server and they decide certain things to happen for said server and it's not exactly right to keep them out of the loop as it can be decisions they don't like/agree with and they should be allowed to have a say in them. If it's something mandatory they should at least be informed of it before implementing said changes. Sure, some may want this because they don't trust the higher-ups, but I personally find it completely fair to want to be notified of decisions coming to the server or have a say in some of them and discuss it.

 

Ranking system

I can definitely agree that it is a bit large and can be a bit of clutter but they all serve different purposes and distinguish what each person does what (as well as the different forums perms too). I don't think there's an easy way to simplify the current ranks without messing up a lot of the permissions and stuff on the forums. It's not really a big issue or a bad thing, just easier to manage imo.

 

I don't have anything else to say about any of the other points or I agree with them if I didn't mention them. That's all for now.

Edited by Pachimo

 

original.gif

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Achievements

I'd hate to redirect the blame...

 

...  I think there's a confusion between Moderation Team particularly on Discord versus Council.  Someone gets snagged with something on Discord and they're quick to call out Council.  This use to work great for me when I wasn't on Council 😅

 

Quick summary is I think we have a lot of talkers.  People like to explode one time mistakes or special circumstances acting like it's a regular problem caused Council or moderation team, but it's the own person problem usually arguing in their own self best interest instead of the community (talk about real bias, right???)

 

------------------------------

 

I do think the frustrations with Moderation Team is built upon lies and misunderstandings especially by this sore thumb group.  For example: People might see that I banned someone for something like Private Matters.  Then they'll see another person do it and they get a warn.  FAVOURITISM!! I'm out to get people (since one person got banned and the other got a warn).  For some reason they think I'm not considering that persons history or context.  Person who got banned probably had 10x talks with various people and lots of warnings before it led to their ban, lots of documented and undocumented warnings, and the person with their first warn was just being silly by testing the waters.  Now this false picture is being painted and I'm being expected to voluntarily dump evidence all over public domain to prove that I'm unbiased?  I obviously can't be doing that.  We run into that problem a lot.  Here's another fake problem we ran into: Ghost banning.  It's not fake in the sense that it has never happened.  It did happen.  It happened ONCE, and it happened because the moderator reasonably thought that the bot would send a message to person who got banned.  It turned out the bot was not working as expected, and so the person accidentally got ghost banned.  I'm sorry it happened, but the picture that was painted is that we're like in the shadows throwing ban darts in the dark.  We immediately remedy the situation, but people were definitely quick to call it out (example) as if this was a frequent behavioural problem with the mods.  Just another example where people construe situations to paint a false picture.  This goes to show that the problems we have are not really moderation problems... it's a problem with the individuals, and I'm personally not too worried.

 

The other assumption is that we're trying to ban people, demote them, or be harsh.  I'm totally baffled when fingers are pointed towards me; that's usually when the person has a super losing case because it's obviously not true and they're getting desperate.  If people got a peak behind the scenes: They'll really see that I'm typically very much the last person to sign off on something like that, and my tolerance for many things is much higher than others.  It's not to say that I wont always gatekeep something that I personally deem to harsh- I know to be strategic and to choose my battles (it's fair to read between the lines and know that the person is a losing case), but I can let things get pretty far before I'm okay with the punishment.  Persons who are getting banned or demoted have usually long buried their graves on their own and have already found a comfy position in their coffin.

 

As for getting fresh blood:  You'd be amazed at the people I have asked to join us, and I'm a frequent supporter of outlier candidates.  I practice what I've preached (another thread in server admins) and I've even gone back to denied apps and have asked people if they are still interested.  This goes back to us just having a bunch of talkers who say they want certain things, but when push comes to shove they're just talkers and not interested in actually doing something.  I'm pretty sure I have by far the lowest requirements ever (shown here).  This segregation between "staff" and the "community" is self-built by the community members who are complaining... not from the top down and certainly not by Council.  What's worse is they don't even view staff members... just mere volunteers... as community members first.  These people it's not their job to sit on all day staffing the servers and they aren't getting paid for it... they are very much community members first and whatever their other roles are secondary.

 

You definitely cannot make roles a hidden thing.  That creates way too many risks and problems- the tradeoffs are not worth it.  Think about something like this nobody has a role showing that they are a moderator or admin.  What happens if someone hops online and impersonates claiming that they are one?  They could easily spread false information such as fake rules or even redirect people to non-GFL IPs/website claiming it's official.  If something goes wrong the moderator would probably have to escalate to their last resorts quickly because people wont believe them that they are a mod, and so it could be harder to mediate some situations.  Moderators do also offer a scarecrow effect.  It's true that some people hop online and start causing problems directly with moderators, but these people their purpose or goal was to hop on and cause problems... moderators give them a lot of visibility and so it was the easy target, but even if there were no moderators online they were going to be a problem.  The scarecrow effect I'm talking about is something you can't see and is hard to measure.  Someone hops on and they see a moderator on... how many times has that prevented someone from break the rules or not pushing their limits?  You wouldn't know.  It could be working 100x per day and you would not know, but because 1-2 people hopped on to dick around the moderator you'll think that having a moderator online causes more problem than what it's worth.  Plus the role collecting thing is just a problem for a small number of people.  When I asked about it in the past (here) it's true that people want a limit, but they have a high limit around 5-7 roles that would only affect a very small number of people if any at all.

 

I think CR is a pretty powerful position depending who's in it.  If you're just there to vote on topics and join a meeting once a month, then you're right... probably not much going on.  If you lean in and swing people's votes or bring up an idea directly to council (cut the lower hierarchy red tape out), then you can really do a lot.  Ultimately: A lot of things that happen here come down to a vote and I would say that Council seems pretty open minded and willing to discuss each topic.


PoorWDm.png?width=360&height=152

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Joining GFL back in late 2019 im still i think considered a baby when it comes to GFL especially with the fact im literally only part of one server. That being Rotation. However, regardless Ive seen alot of the stuff you talk about and i preach some of it too. Sadly though ive also been the center of more well known among rotation drama escapades' since ive been around.

I think we are all humans and you highlighting your flaws is normal. We all have flaws and perks and i commend bringing your flaws out in the open.

Im not versed in the internals of GFL politics as a whole but when it comes to TTT Rotation Politics thats one im a lil more of a nose as ive dug into before. Nowadays i try to avoid it for alot of your same reasons. Im very much sick of it. Despite being the 2 time perma ban champ i still genuinely love the community as a whole and hate it being torn apart by endless drama as we have had it. There's always something. Never really peace for a time as much as we try.
Granted we do have. small areas of it but not enough for us to not have to think about anything.

I agree to an extent of focusing on the servers themselves but i group it as. We as GFL are a giant community but i cant say im in the same shell as those from other games like CS or TF2 when im literally only in GMOD and only at one server in the GMOD division that being Rotation. So i separate when i say community I base that around server. Cause its different. Tbh im more sentimental and i look at it more as the server is my family in a sense despite the rocky relationship. I wish more server focus was had.

Your entire Trust Ownership And Higher Ranks section Is based as fuck. Especially now when rotation has basically no managers now the guy who can add shit literally cannot cause he has to wait and i find that fucking shitty. Sure we have gotten by before without needing to. But theres somethings we literally cannot add without a manager and again we are without any at all.

Server Admin Visibility I find i agree and disagree to an extent. I dont mind an admin is labeled an admin personally i feel more comfortable with that than without cause i fear the potential communication errors and missteps and the misinformation that can be spread by anyone that can just say they are a hidden admin and the what not. But I do think admins need to have a better communication and vibe with the players. I think admins should be allowed to have fun with the players like the regular players. Cause as ive been told and learned in my time of rotation the amount of staff that have engaged with me in harmless fun to then come to find out they "shouldn't have been doing that" and its egregious and all that when it literally harms fucking no one and all it does is encourage the fun which we strive for with our server.
This ties into your take on more fun and more lax rules. Ive preached this heavily and maybe its because of me needing to have rusty skates on ice the last time i was unbanned. Because i was afraid any amount of fun i had would slightly go into technical rule breaking territory despite it again. harming no one, encouraging fun and people had a good time. Part of my current ban has some of that same fun in the reasoning.

It... makes me happy i guess this is your take for how you see things on a fun end. Alot of what you said relates in a strange way to me. Giving people chances, wanting more lax things. Tbh i feel alot of your other stuff is alot of wanting better communication and less drama cause boy howdy does bad communication make drama happen alot more. Its what ive tried to do is be a median for communication.

Pure from the heart honesty where have i seen this before 👀
Roy this was a wonderful read and i know we dont know each other that well but i know we interacted a couple times now, but. Thank you. This was a wonderful read.


Spoiler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Before I go into detail, I just want to say that I highly appreciate the posts here. Some of you are pretty damn intelligent with what you say and the words you choose along with how you explain things (I know I'm not as good, but god damn I wish I could be). I still stand by a lot of the points I made. However, some things I've changed my mind about due to the replies above and I also want to make clear that there isn't anybody in the wrong here. Everything has its pros and cons, but we all have different opinions on how the community should be ran depending on those pros and cons of each aspect. I respect all of your opinions and as I said, literally nobody is 'wrong'. Of course, I still stand by how I think it should be ran because I do think it'd run better that way and in the way I've always wanted GFL to be ran (e.g. it's foundations), but a lot of things have changed since my time and my ways may not suit the community as much. I'm also not painting GFL's "old times" as some sort of, heaven? It had so many flaws as well and I was so careless with how I was trying to throw ranks during the later "old times" (e.g. 2013 - 2015). So many things could have been improved and I made so many fucking terrible/dumb decisions (still did throughout the more recent years too, but I was in HS then just trying to make changes all the time), but throughout all of that, my points are where I feel GFL would run with best in the future. I also haven't paid much attention to the GFL politics throughout the past two years or so. I've read some things, but I ultimately have stayed out of it due to what I explained in my initial post at the top.

 

With that said, I know points I've mentioned definitely have their downsides. I know I haven't mentioned their downsides, but it seems some have already brought them up with certain points. In the end, I still try to choose how things should be ran based off of the weight of the pros compared to cons along with long-term. Some of it is also based off of how I've ran things before because I saw them successful. But at the same time, do they fit in with the new-styled community? I don't really know, but I think at least some should fit and would benefit GFL.

 

You then have to ask if a lot of Staff+ have the right mindset? I don't think they do and I think it has been hurting GFL's quality for years. People will disagree of course and I respect that. I do think some ranks such as Council seem to be doing alright. However, I think the main problems I have with are power hungry Server Admins (e.g. admins who unnecessarily show dominance and authority within the server and try to get a toxic following) and Server Managers for the most part. I've seen some Server Managers throw up hands, cause a huge scene, and threaten to resign because a higher up (somebody higher than them in hierarchy) tried to help their server or fixed a bug (in which, did not impact the server at all besides fixing the legit bug itself). That is such a fucking toxic mindset to me and I've experienced it first hand. To me, this isn't personal, so I'm not trying to attack said individuals personally, so please don't try to take it that way (hell some of them in the past I was still personal friends with), although, a lot of these types do take it personally (hence why they threaten to resign and so on, in which, do what you got to do).

 

This has been the biggest turnoff to me throughout the years and I know there are many others who have felt the same way. There have been Division Leaders with these mindsets too in the past and more than that (I haven't noticed any in the present in the higher ranks). Now, it's understandable getting upset if a higher up does something that affects the server negatively either with technical-aspects or perhaps changing a gameplay option without notice (gameplay should be communicated with the Server Manager or DL). But if somebody higher up is trying to make the server better, you shouldn't make a scene unless if they aren't writing down a changelog, don't have trust/experience with you, and/or haven't DM'd you about it afterwards. They're higher ups for a reason, SMs+ should be respecting them and know they have the best intentions. This worked very well back in the day for GFL and allowed for so much better quality servers and bugs fixed quicker. If the server is negatively effected or something breaks, that's when it's an issue and I do think it should be reported. My mindset has always been if somebody can do something better than me to the server, let them do it. The more help, the better. It betters friendships as well and allows you to get to know these specific higher ups more. However, some people legitimately have the mindset that their server is theirs when it's in GFL and it can't be touched regardless of hierarchy. Again, I think that's the a very toxic mindset to have in this community and I know many people have it now from what I hear. I know I went on a big rant, but this is shit I've been wanting to get out for years. I've tried helping in the front end (in my own community at this time) and got immediate backlash because I tried coming in and helping (no, I wasn't changing gameplay either). It has pissed me off for so long and I just to let out that frustration. I understand some form of communication being needed such as a change log or direct DMs unless if the SM/DL trusts the higher up, but when communication is made like that, it shouldn't be a problem unless if it's impacting the server negatively.

 

Anyways, this brings me to my next point. Each division and server has its own culture. There have been many attempts to try to make all of GFL's servers more aligned with the community itself. However, they've all failed including my attempts in the past. To be honest, I do think merging everything into one GFL Discord server would be best long-term, but I know that would never happen. I know it has its pros and cons, but there are cons that people don't realize until they're truly behind the scenes (only higher-up ranks would understand this con). It's the same things with rules and the player base. It's just not something that will ever be able to change since that's just how community servers are.

 

I also want to make clear I'm likely coming back either way to help out as much as I can because GFL is getting pretty burnt out right now in many ways. I do think some key points I've made would help the community and staff as a whole (along with motivating individuals including myself), but honestly, unless if we had backing of other staff who wants to go with it, I don't think it's going to get anywhere. There would be a lot of pissed off Server Managers+ and Server Admins I feel. Many would threaten to leave and shit like that. People would act like it's the end of the world even though it's not (because I've seen it for over ten years and let me tell you it's never the end of the world and GFL always bounces back stronger). Some changes implemented definitely does influence the amount of motivation and dedication I'm willing to give though. If I see changes implemented that I'm happy with and allows me to get things back on track easier, I'll commit more time into GFL and try to help in areas I haven't before. Things will be different than before because I have a girlfriend now, but I think that's a good thing because it'll allow me to have actual breaks. In the end, I'm not going to sweat anything and to tell everyone the truth, regardless of where people want me at in GFL, I do plan on starting another community with a friend (which I will never bring up in GFL and will be completely separate).

 

On 12/17/2021 at 3:45 PM, Beaker said:

Issue with anonymous voting is that sometimes I have to know the exact person I am voting for. I understand the purpose of anomynity as it "levels the playing field".  But there could be candidates that have left a bad taste in my mouth, or that I would know wouldnt be that good at performing CR things. It also allows me to research the candidates name and history.

 

This is a con for anonymous voting for CRs. People can easily mask themselves and make their application seem very great/amazing. I've seen a lot of toxic people have this skillset for sure in the past. Then what happens when it turns out to be a toxic person they knew of without it being anonymous. Then you'll have players users complaining about the person they picked.

 

On the flip side, it does have its pros like some others have mentioned. I also do think it'd make the players more included as well. However, I feel we'd run into a lot of people also trying to tell others to vote for them without people knowing. And then what do you do when this proof comes out after the election? With the average age of the gaming community, I feel this would happen quite often.

 

With that said, I've always feared what would happen if somebody who didn't get along with the Council got it. It sounds like in the past some toxic people almost won or was on their way to winning and what do you do in that case when you have 

 

I just believe hand picking would be ultimately better for GFL (and as I said in my initial post, yEs, iT iS FaVorITiSM). 

 

On 12/17/2021 at 5:09 PM, Nick said:

However, for quite some time GFL's owner has not been directly leading GFL. This is not to talk bad about you @Roy; I wouldn't wish the full responsibility of GFL on my worst enemy! With the owner and leadership being split up, bureaucracy was needed in order to somehow split the decision-making authority. Now I am very biased about this since I had a big part in the design, but I think Council is a very good solution to this specific problem. It is without a doubt as @Joshy also mentioned deeply rooted in earlier practices: in each iteration of the ranks being redone, a group of people in power had to agree on how to split the power (often among themselves, haha) which can only lead to bureaucracy. I fear it would only be possible to break this chain if we started completely over.

I do think Council or something like Council. Just something to offload work from the actual owner(s) and handle issues within the community itself.

 

 

On 12/17/2021 at 5:09 PM, Nick said:

I don't think I see a problem with our hierarchy at the moment; except at the top where it gets quite complicated due to the above. I think Teams is an important part of GFL which we need to focus more on building up to achieve our goals (I will talk a little more about this further down). I really wish I had some good ideas for this; I think the main issue I had as a TL was breaking the cycle of distrust. Some teams have historically not performed super well and thus have gotten a bad reputation which results in less requests from the rest of the community. It might be worthwhile to do a workshop for discussing improvements.

I think I've looked at ranks at a more top-level than what it currently is. For example, there is Division Representatives which is a part of Council. DR is also a separate group/rank itself whereas a long time ago we had something similar, but the "titles" (ranks/groups now) were more internal. However, I see the point of ranks as well since it lets the community know who is who.

 

 

On 12/17/2021 at 5:09 PM, Nick said:

Give more people chances

I wholeheartedly agree that we should give more people chances in role such as SM and DL. I have for a long time been concerned about the requirements for these types of roles since we often require someone to be good at everything from staff management to the technical stuff. I apologize to people who had read this rant a million times before, haha.

 

I think it is vital that we built up a more reliant and trusted development team and TA rooster who will, as the names imply, be responsible for development and technical administration for all servers. Thus an SM or DL will have more time to focus on staff management, expansion, and so on. As mentioned earlier, I am not a fan of having multiple SMs, and the most common distinction between two co-managers is a technical and non-technical manager; this could hopefully eliminate the need for a technical manager.

 

The classic argument I hear when I bring this up is that some servers require a dedicated developer or something like that; this model would not prohibit that since the development team could allow a developer to primarily work on a specific server and for TA we already got divisional TAs.

 

This was also the main train of thought, when Division Representatives was designed for Council: I wanted a Council where DLs had a say, but without immensely inflating the requirements for being a DL (i.e. they'd also become part of Council), thus the compromise Well-Established Division was born as a way to give long-living divisions representation without discouraging the creation of new, experimental divisions with their own DL who likely should not be held to the same standards as a DL of a more well-established division.

 

All in all, use our teams, TAs, and so on more to simplify requirements for roles such as SM and DL, and in turn be more willing to let new people have a go at it.

I definitely agree with you unless if it's some sort of special case where the server is so popular that it needs more than one SM. But that should be for an RP server with 80+ players or Rust servers with 100+. Servers that rarely fill up to 20 - 30 players shouldn't have two SMs, in my opinion, period.

 

As for the DR rank itself, I don't really see a point in it unless if you have multiple DLs in divisions. Personally, even then, I feel it does complicate it a bit. I do understand the reasoning for it, but I still feel Division Leaders should all be a part of Council. I'm not sure why they aren't already, but in that case, there's no point in DRs. The only thing I can think of is there are DLs in some games that don't have a big enough influence on GFL as a whole yet. However, I just still think they should in my opinion because they'll be able to give different prospectives and so on.

 

I'm also really happy with the TA team from what I can see and it's filled with a bunch of solid people. I really hope we can use them more in the future because I feel they can have a huge impact.

 

On 12/17/2021 at 10:31 PM, flying4ssassin said:

I think something that is not really mentioned here is that part of the reason why GFL politics suck is that people do not know what the role actually do.

I'm not sure if I'm missing something obvious, but I do agree on people needing to know which roles do what. I had to piece it together in this thread because the only information that I could find was in this thread which is outdated.

 

 

I apologize if I missed it though. I looked in a lot of places however. I feel it should go on the Staff page somewhere to be honest (e.g. as an IPS 4 block).

 

18 hours ago, Pachimo said:

I see where you're coming from and it can definitely rub people off the wrong way but you must admit that in a way it is kind of essential. While the way it might be done can be the issue, I do feel it's important for the community to vote for somebody they deem is a good candidate for the position and while the playerbase is not always right, they are simply more comfortable with certain people than others to talk to. I believe it's a position of power where people should feel more inclined to go to for issues and then they will either handle it themselves if they can or relay the information to their higher-ups, like HR. As you know the Directors are busy with a range of different tasks around all the community and they shouldn't exactly put up with silly drama often (I am guilty of this too, to which I apologize). If their purpose is different then forgive me for being mistaken.

 

Point is, the community should be allowed a say in something like this as it is to help them.

Politics will always be to an extent essential in GFL. But I think it certainly needs to be minimized more than it is now. The gaming community isn't even fun to many players anymore due to it. You have people resigning because literally some Discord servers are filled with politics or shitposting. I know politics will always exist in GFL, but it needs to be more leaning towards having fun.

 

With that said, I've the average age range in GFL is lower than 18 and just because a player feels more comfortable around a certain person doesn't mean that certain person should be staff. A lot of manipulation goes around, we've seen it so much in the past and I'd prefer staff hand-picking others that they'll get along and work together with over who players feel comfortable around (who many of them are manipulated to voting for so and so) and get in conflicts with the previous staff because they're toxic/a manipulator just looking for more power, don't get along, or whatever it is.

 

18 hours ago, Pachimo said:

SMs, Head Admins, Trust etc.

I disagree with getting rid of Head Admins and making them all SAs. Head Admins have different responsabilities and stuff in different servers, but to me Head Admins are senior server staff that helps the newer server staff with guidelines, helping them learn the commands and stuff alongside the SM. While it should also be up to the SM to assist with stuff like this, they aren't always available nor do some choose to, hence they get a Head Admin to help out with the playerbase more as well as staff. They're like the SMs assistant in a variety of ways, while SAs are to help mostly with moderating the server. It's not for everyone, and SMs have the option of not getting a Head Admin if they really don't want or need one. Some want and like the idea of HA, some don't. It's all fair.

 

Now as for some SMs wanting some stuff to be run by them first, most of the time it's not exactly a trust issue. SMs are picked to run a server and they decide certain things to happen for said server and it's not exactly right to keep them out of the loop as it can be decisions they don't like/agree with and they should be allowed to have a say in them. If it's something mandatory they should at least be informed of it before implementing said changes. Sure, some may want this because they don't trust the higher-ups, but I personally find it completely fair to want to be notified of decisions coming to the server or have a say in some of them and discuss it.

I do understand your point, but I still feel Head Admin is more of an internal role. It's who admins (which is internal) looks up to. The HAs may have more commands too, but I just don't really see the point in them being known to everyone as HA. That's just my opinion though. I do think there are pros and cons to each, but I just don't see a big enough reason for HAs to have their own official (public) rank.

 

18 hours ago, Pachimo said:

Ranking system

I can definitely agree that it is a bit large and can be a bit of clutter but they all serve different purposes and distinguish what each person does what (as well as the different forums perms too). I don't think there's an easy way to simplify the current ranks without messing up a lot of the permissions and stuff on the forums. It's not really a big issue or a bad thing, just easier to manage imo.

I understand this as well, but unless if a team is making a big impact to GFL, I just don't see them as needed. I know GFX for example makes a lot of logos and so on, and I appreciate that. However, do they make a true enough impact to GFL as a whole to earn an individual rank? I still feel a points system would be better and that way you don't have people just getting those ranks and sitting around doing nothing. There are teams I really do think work well such as the Mod team (who I handled by @Joshy to my understanding who is doing a good job from what I've heard).

 

It causes more strain to the higher ups when a Team Leader is inactive or if you hear reports on certain team members being inactive and the TL not doing anything. I still think a simpler rank structure in GFL would benefit the staff and make them less burnt out. That's why I'm in full support of it, but I also get other people's points as well.

 

9 hours ago, Joshy said:

You definitely cannot make roles a hidden thing.  That creates way too many risks and problems- the tradeoffs are not worth it.  Think about something like this nobody has a role showing that they are a moderator or admin.  What happens if someone hops online and impersonates claiming that they are one?  They could easily spread false information such as fake rules or even redirect people to non-GFL IPs/website claiming it's official.  If something goes wrong the moderator would probably have to escalate to their last resorts quickly because people wont believe them that they are a mod, and so it could be harder to mediate some situations.  Moderators do also offer a scarecrow effect.  It's true that some people hop online and start causing problems directly with moderators, but these people their purpose or goal was to hop on and cause problems... moderators give them a lot of visibility and so it was the easy target, but even if there were no moderators online they were going to be a problem.  The scarecrow effect I'm talking about is something you can't see and is hard to measure.  Someone hops on and they see a moderator on... how many times has that prevented someone from break the rules or not pushing their limits?  You wouldn't know.  It could be working 100x per day and you would not know, but because 1-2 people hopped on to dick around the moderator you'll think that having a moderator online causes more problem than what it's worth.  Plus the role collecting thing is just a problem for a small number of people.  When I asked about it in the past (here) it's true that people want a limit, but they have a high limit around 5-7 roles that would only affect a very small number of people if any at all.

You are absolutely right in regards to this and it's something I didn't think of before. My main intention was to make players feel less managed I suppose so they could feel more relaxed and also fight off the admins who are being unnecessarily dominant with their rank and showing it off like no tomorrow. However, the  on you mentioned above definitely blows those out. I was going to suggest a command or menu to see what admins are online at the moment (I think some servers have it), but then again, there are a lot of clueless players out there who are very guilable and will follow somebody who says they're an admin/impersonation. So yeah I take that point back and thank you for bringing that up 😄

 

That's all for now and I apologize if I went off a bit. I've just been holding back a lot for years and I just want to get it all out.

 

Thank you again for all the input and I'm sorry if I missed some points. I tried getting to as many as I could!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Posted  Edited by Joshy

Raw idea here.  2 am thinking so maybe I'm not in the right mind.  Instead of changing everything or applying it to all...

 

...  I think we could start something like a redundant server with super relaxed rules (basically "no hacking, no doxxing, and no illegal activity").  I think the whole idea of a lot of rules is we don't want people to be excluded or put up with certain crap, but if we had a redundant server where it was allowed, then that's up to the person to be there or not.  I mean it would be a lot like having a CS:GO Surf [US] and CS:GO Surf [EU] sever we've had redundant servers before, and so we could expand with CS:GO Surf [Anarchy] or something like that.  These games and modes are just an example, and I would imagine CS:GO Surf is not a good example of a server that would want, such a server, but I'm sure we can target a few where it is likely of interest.

 

It wouldn't be the brightest or most wonderful thing ever, but I suppose it would be like visiting a video store that has XXX stuff in the back or maybe a designated smoking area at a university or airport.  You don't have to go there if you don't want to and and you what you're risking if you do (ie. slurs, NSFW images, spamming).

 

I would definitely capitalize on it and make it like a perk probably call it something like VIP+Anarchy and add a few bucks more since I'm expecting only a small subset of the community would really want this, and redundant servers cost money and needs managing just like regular good servers.

 

If we don't want something like this "tarnishing" GFL's reputation, then we can very much treat it like Physion Unturned... give these separate servers a different name and recognize GFL as a parent company of it.

Edited by Joshy

PoorWDm.png?width=360&height=152

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


A lot of interesting points. What you said about simplifying ranks really resonates with me and as someone relatively new within the GFL community I feel like the whole ranking system is a bit too much.


-- Sirhephaestus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Posted  Edited by Waylon Smithers

 

Haha so many words so I'll probs get something mixed up but here I go anyway 😄

 

I go in order of stuff I find interesting.

Quote

 It becomes a popularity contest

I always find it strange when people say this, every voting system has always been a 'popularity contest'. That's the point, to have the popular vote. I assume you mean that it's just 'whoever is more well known as opposed to whoever has the best ideas'. But this is always how voting has and does work, best ideas don't always equal greatest popularity. It has nothing to do with the environment or age demographic of GFL. And there is really no real evidence the age of voting should be restricted to 18 other than differing opinions, what would you say to countries that have the age of voting at 16? Considering GFL is a multi-cultural community as most online communities are, there is no doubt some people are from these countries where this thought of voting at 18 applies. As for anonymity... no thanks, don't want to accidentally vote for someone like Jinzu.

 

Now, favouritism. I feel you've misunderstood the complaints on favouritism or also likely, we've witnessed and experienced differently. My personal complaints that I've seen shared by many others is the inequality of standards between people that get demoted or get promoted. That's not to say you did this personally but it is certain some people were allowed more leniency than others when it came to how far they could go without being demoted e.g. Jinzu. I don't know who was entirely responsible for his shenanigans but whoa boy what a mess. Karkles was also quite the criminal in terms of what they got away with but this is likely unrelated to you so moving on. 

 

Rank Simplify

Ye aight ok.

The only part I disagree with is 'Head Admins". I assume the equivalent of this that we use on GMOD is 'Senior Admins'. I feel that having someone that you can delegate more responsibility too is important, they also act as a good medium connection between the server managers and admins. Admins (especially newer ones) often avoid bringing any sort of negative attention to themselves, this could be either avoiding asking questions they may see as making them look stupid or avoiding speaking out against an action they see another admin do that they disagree with. No matter how relaxed of an SM and how hard I tried to put my self on the same level as my admins, it was impossible to get every bit of information about the relationships between your admins. Having my seniors greatly helped. I gave most of my admins equal power, the only differing power a senior had was they handled ban appeals/player reports.

 

Focusing on Servers: Ye cool.

 

Quote

Another thing I've noticed throughout the years is Division Leaders and Server Managers having a mindset everything must run through them for their respective divisions or servers.

I know what you mean, but I personally never had this issue since the prime GMOD dev was also a manager of the same server and if he wasn't available, I did ask someone else.

 

Quote

Server Admin Visibility

I found this whole section kinda weird. 

 

Quote

He said players shouldn't even know somebody is an admin until it is absolutely needed (e.g. the admin needs to do something in-game such as tell someone to calm down).

I know from experience players will not give a rat's ass if a random player tells them to 'calm down'. No matter what you'll have to 'flex' your admin status and then you'll just look like a weirdo undercover RP player. 

 

Quote

Many players hate seeing authority in a game server. Many of our players are younger age, and younger age generally dislike authority. Therefore, when an admin has very fancy tags showing off their admin rank, it rubs players the wrong way. Now, they can have fancy tags, just don't let people know you're an admin in it and if people ask, say it's a VIP perk so they'll be urged to purchase VIP for example (or Supporter).

This feels entirely anecdotal as I personally have the opposing view, if I go on a server and don't see an admin, I'm less inclined to even bother to try to play as I assume that the server will be filled with trolls/hackers. (And yes, even when I was younger.) I've never heard of the case of someone buying a VIP rank thinking it'll get admin and even if they do... who's to blame? Also not sure the process for other servers but anyone can acquire a 'special' VIP tag on the leader board on some TTT servers so I might not properly understand what you're getting at. The reason I became admin is because I saw the good that they did for the server and wanted to help, I never once gave their tag a thought so guess it's just a personal perspective thing.

 

Quote

The less unneeded power an admin shows, the better. There is no reason to show off power unless absolutely needed. Hell, if somebody is doing something bad in the server, I feel the admins should try to talk to them like they're just a general player. If that fails, then obviously you can warn them and that'd basically be showing the power which is understandable.

If you're an admin, the understanding is that you are willing to sacrifice your enjoyment for the betterment of the server. If they have to 'manually' figure this out, this'd just cause players to get involved with the harassment which is not ideal.

 

Quote

You then have to ask if a lot of Staff+ have the right mindset? I don't think they do and I think it has been hurting GFL's quality for years. People will disagree of course and I respect that. I do think some ranks such as Council seem to be doing alright. However, I think the main problems I have with are power hungry Server Admins (e.g. admins who unnecessarily show dominance and authority within the server and try to get a toxic following) and Server Managers for the most part. I've seen some Server Managers throw up hands, cause a huge scene, and threaten to resign because a higher up (somebody higher than them in hierarchy) tried to help their server or fixed a bug (in which, did not impact the server at all besides fixing the legit bug itself). That is such a fucking toxic mindset to me and I've experienced it first hand. To me, this isn't personal, so I'm not trying to attack said individuals personally, so please don't try to take it that way (hell some of them in the past I was still personal friends with), although, a lot of these types do take it personally (hence why they threaten to resign and so on, in which, do what you got to do).

This is a good take but at the same time this is the fault of whoever promoted and oversees them in the first place. 

 

Anyway all I can be bothered to type, probs more but eh another time. Maybe make other post soon.

And yeah the structure is ass lmao.

Edited by Waylon Smithers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Achievements

Posted  Edited by AlphaOwl
46 minutes ago, Waylon Smithers said:

Rank Simplify

Ye aight ok.

The only part I disagree with is 'Head Admins". I assume the equivalent of this that we use on GMOD is 'Senior Admins'. I feel that having someone that you can delegate more responsibility too is important, they also act as a good medium connection between the server managers and admins. Admins (especially newer ones) often avoid bringing any sort of negative attention to themselves, this could be either avoiding asking questions they may see as making them look stupid or avoiding speaking out against an action they see another admin do that they disagree with. No matter how relaxed of an SM and how hard I tried to put my self on the same level as my admins, it was impossible to get every bit of information about the relationships between your admins. Having my seniors greatly helped. I gave most of my admins equal power, the only differing power a senior had was they handled ban appeals/player reports.

 

Focusing on Servers: Ye cool.

 

I know what you mean, but I personally never had this issue since the prime GMOD dev was also a manager of the same server and if he wasn't available, I did ask someone else.

 

This feels entirely anecdotal as I personally have the opposing view, if I go on a server and don't see an admin, I'm less inclined to even bother to try to play as I assume that the server will be filled with trolls/hackers. (And yes, even when I was younger.) I've never heard of the case of someone buying a VIP rank thinking it'll get admin and even if they do... who's to blame? Also not sure the process for other servers but anyone can acquire a 'special' VIP tag on the leader board on some TTT servers so I might not properly understand what you're getting at. The reason I became admin is because I saw the good that they did for the server and wanted to help, I never once gave their tag a thought so guess it's just a personal perspective thing.

 

If you're an admin, the understanding is that you are willing to sacrifice your enjoyment for the betterment of the server. If they have to 'manually' figure this out, this'd just cause players to get involved with the harassment which is not ideal.

 

This is a good take but at the same time this is the fault of whoever promoted and oversees them in the first place. 

 

Honestly without this man I wouldn't hold the same admin philosophy as I do today. Waylon did a wonderful job managing TTT Vanilla and the staff and admins there were all very enjoyable and minimally problematic.

 

I do agree in the aspect that for TTT, admins aren't very discouraging for new players. However, admins that treat themselves as different from players is what rub people the wrong way. It's most evident with the recent drama and the "disconnect" between GFL higherups versus players. Of course, not all of the higherups get a chance to become interactive with these small communities; they're managing a network essentially. However, it's understanding the pain and trying to level seeing eye-to-eye on situations that actually makes people enjoy the presence of these "admins". I've constantly strived for this especially on TTT Rotation, which is the reason I applied in the first place since the "disconnect" at the time separated the staff from the players heavily. And so far it seems to work (or I think it does at least). Staff are just players with added responsibility; we should remember that first and foremost before powertripping like a bunch of megalomaniacs. Being staff shouldn't also be treated as a job; it's volunteer work and people have to remember that. It'll prevent less burnout and less inactivity; this because players wouldn't feel discouraged to resign if they're not feeling it anymore for a short time. I think from what I've seen on Rotation, there's also more worry about demoting people for inactivity then there should be; just make the system easier for that person if they intend to come back. I think also with the SM having complete oversight of how the server is running, they need to properly delegate specific responsibilities if unavailable, whether it be how to admin or content for the server. More "automation" (like a preset plan) and more faith. 

 

Anyways no clue why I decided to really comment this, I just really appreciate this man for inspiring me how to admin and managing the people around him. Because Waylon genuinely ran a pretty tight but enjoyable ship, and in some regard I do carry the same philosophy too.

Edited by AlphaOwl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


On 12/19/2021 at 4:41 AM, Joshy said:

It wouldn't be the brightest or most wonderful thing ever, but I suppose it would be like visiting a video store that has XXX stuff in the back or maybe a designated smoking area at a university or airport.  You don't have to go there if you don't want to and and you what you're risking if you do (ie. slurs, NSFW images, spamming).

 

just sayin, I would contribute to such a server


GFX1.thumb.png.c5c5371c03240785be325143d4584c4a.png

(Signature credit to @Clavers)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×
×
  • Create New...