Rule Amendment: Level 4 RCs
 

Okay well we have discussed this and decided to change the following rule. The rule we are changing is this one:

We have decided to allow another RC. This RC for hosted (paid for) playerworlds can go on the Admin-Playerworld## account.

Therefore if you’re using it as a level4 RC you are allowed another. And if you’re not using it, you can and must as this must be the 3rd.

__________________________________________


Because of that this rule will also be changed:

If you have not got 3 Managers/Assistant Managers/Co-manager then you can give this RC to a high positioned admin on your playerworld.

__________________________________________

Well that’s all. But for those who are confused on what is and isn’t a level 3 RC (4 is obvious and so are 1 and 2) here are the 3 main rights that are different to a level2 RC that make it a level 3:

> Set server flags
- Change rights
> Ban players
> Change comments
- Change staff accounts
- Change server options
- Edit folder configuration
- Edit Folder rights
- NPC-Control

I thought setting comments was part of level 2.

Try: Set player attributes, disconnect players, reset attributes, administrator message, set server flags, ban players.

I missed out the word main :\

It is Lance and I pointed this out to Spark so it can't be included . This only applies to the bottom set of rights on the RC , all rights on the top set of rights are optional for either a lv2 or lv3 RC , lv1 RC must remain at the pre-determined preset level. With Level 2 and 3 RCs all top rights can be changed and suited for whatever the job on the server is but any RC with the bottom rights checked as shown by Spark in his post will be considered a level 3 RC.


Top Rights

Example of a GP set of rights as a modified lv2 RC and is not a lv3 RC:

x Warpto X Y
x Warpto player
x Warp players
x Update level
x Disconnect players
x View player attributes
x Set player attributes
x Set the own attributes
x Reset attributes
x Admin message


Bottom Rights


- Set server flags
- Change rights
- Ban players
x Change comments
- Change staff accounts
- Change server options
- Edit folder configuration
- Edit Folder rights
- NPC-Control

The X's denotes rights enabled, only lv3 RCs can ban from a server, so the total of people able to ban from a PW is 6 now instead of 5 with the addition of the extra lv4 RC for hosted PWs for all other servers it will be 6 also .

so then if you have 3 accounts with level4 RC, there would really be 4?

1. the admin playerworld account that you got with your world,
2. the manager's main account
3. Admin or asst/co manager #1
4. Admin or asst/co manager #2

Seem's reasonable to adjust to.

If you have a Admin account on your hosted PW then you can have it as a Lv4 RC + 2 others for a total of 3 but if you don't then you are still allowed 3 Lv4 RCs per server ( Corrected version)

Easier way:
Classic servers = 2 level 4 RC's.
UC servers (Bought) = 3 RC's if you wish, Buyer/Manager/Co-manager.
Easier to understand?

Not always , Zone is both a hosted and a Classic server , so this does not always apply. *shrugs*

I think he get's my picture.
By 'Classic' I meant to say before the buying came in.
I thought you would of understood that..

Yeah I was going to say classic myself then I remembered Zone/Enigma.

It's hard our life. ::Weep's::

Incorrect.

Hosted worlds can have two lvl 4 RCs, plus the Admin-playerworld account.

Worlds that don't have an admin-playerworld account can give their 3rd level 4 RC to another account.

Yep your right I read it wrong , I stand corrected..;)

I feel this whole playerworld rules thing should be a guideline rather than a follow this strictly thing. It seems you are telling us managers how to run our servers rather than giving us advice (for those who need it).

I have not once, EVER complained about one rule that was created or one decision a global staff member has made, but I guess I'm about to break that silence, so to speak: this has gone entirely too far. Slowly but surely, more and more control is being taken away from the customers (buyers/managers etc) and given to global staff. Rather than handing down punishments to those who do not wish to conform to these global standards, I think a blanket disclaimer should be issued: Either follow these guidelines, or any trouble you have as a result of not doing so is your problem. This takes care of any responsibility Graal Online holds in dealing with the problems that server owners/managers/staff bring upon themselves, while not making them feel as though they need to raise their hand and ask someone before they even breathe.

- EDIT -

I don't want it to look like I have suddenly gone anti-Graal-administration or anything like that. Perhaps I simply don't understand the reasoning behind the need for so many restrictions.

Perhaps they feel that they need to babysit us, that we're not to be trusted or responsible enough to be able to carry on without the help of these rules.

The simple fact of the matter is that many rules have underlying functions in them. Take for instance if you will, the limit on level 3 RCs. This is mostly to control the ammount of people with the ability to ban. While that's not ALL the rule is for, it's a big part. Less people banning means it will be more of a privilage. Managers won't give everybody on RC ban rights, and thus, there will be far fewer instances of angry staff banning people for bad reasons or without reasons at all.

It's to cut down on problems. It's true that they are guidelines, but they're not optional. If you're doing everything right, you should be affected by them little to none. If they're causing you to completely re-organize your staff, maybe they weren't being properly managed before.

Also to curb the inevitable arguement "but all my staff use their rights properly and we've never had a problem". Be that as it may, some of the rights staff have aren't necessary for them to do their jobs properly. Even if a Developer, for example, never banned anybody unjustly, that doesn't mean he needs ban rights to make content for the server.

Banning doesn't need to be a privilage...

Its true that limiting peopel with ban CAN reduce incedents about unfair banning, but that will not happen if there are superior staff on with higher rank.

There are also incedents that would make limiting them bad because the people that do have ban are less active.

But still, you need to let the Manager/Owner decide what ranks get what rights (As long as nothing gets out of control) if the person can handle it and it was needed at some point.

Some of you keep complaining that a manager, or server renter should be able to do as they wish, and Graalonline not take the responsability for it?
Does that mean that a Manager can say "I'm not responsible for that problem, because another staff member did it"? No

It is easy to forget, I guess, that you ARE representing Graal (a business). They ARE responsible for EVERYTHING that is online, and everything that is done.
A Manager is responsible for everything that goes on, on his/her PW....and Graalonline (Stefan/Unixmad) is responsible for everything about Graal as a whole.

The rules have been needed for a long time, but especially since the server renting started, in my opinion from things I have seen over the years.

Personally, I dont see where it is such a big deal to limit rights to only what is needed for each staff job. There have been too many staff going on rampages, and banning people...too many staff going on rampages, and deleting whole servers, or deleting staff lists, and so on.....Too many people with high rights that they simply do not need....less people with them, means less likelyhood of these things happening.

Small price to pay for the good of Graal ;)

Is that what we said? No.


That is a good point though, since mostly anyone can get a server these days. Doesn't mean I agree with right limiting though.

I'm sure there's been quite a few murders IRL, doesn't mean we should all be locked up to prevent them from happening.

hehe ban rampages.

Manager (RC): Hey look theres another one!

/openban newb

ban reason: get off my private playerworld!

*apply*

... fourty three hours later..

Manager (RC): OMG WHERE DO THEY KEEP COMING FROM?

/openban newb2

ban reason: private server! off!

*apply*



Some people are TOO uptight.

hmm Brandon 3 full level 4 RCs is enough.
Also the administration approved the rules, we aren't doing what we want.

Hahahaha.

I dont know if what you posted really happened somewhere, but I do know for a fact that similar cases have been done, as I was banned just because staff didnt like me somewhere for a brief time (thank goodness for the new rules.)
Another reason as to why PW renters/Managers and their staff should not be allowed to do whatever they please.

To be fair, you arent well liked by some people. You arent a global, so they have every right to ban you.

[edit] According to the rules, you may not ban someone because you dislike them.

It doesnt say you cant ban them for a number of stupid reasons, e.g.

"You have the letter M in your name, you banned."

Maybe they should be revised.
[/edit]



No what i posted before i have never whitnessed, but if it does go on, then its proof that people have no time on their hands, and should take up bowling.

You want us to trust the managers to govern people's rights responsibly... but then - you want us to revise the rules so that they can't ban for any number of stupid reasons... Doesn't that seem like common sense? Why would we let them decide how many level 4 RCs to give out if they ban people for those kinds of reasons? Wrong.

You mentioned it yourself in your post, i.e. "Customers " being the paying customer of the player and the players has rights to expect a standard to his Gameplay they are paying for . Now as for PW hosting you are not so to speak a customer as the players are. Once you cross that threshold of providing a product (Your PW thru Graal, since they own all and take all the risk involved with the online Game) you are required to meet certain standards for the paying customer "the players". If you do not wish to pay for the privilege of doing this, then don't "rent a PW". Because this is the terms in which you have to follow to do this.

You own nothing, something you fail to realize, you take no risk involved in the Game, you pay for very little with regards your PW and to what the real cost are, because Graal pays the bulk of this by the paying players and not what you pay. This is why so many restrictions, Graal has the responsibility of providing responsible management of all PWs and is why the rules are what they are. Graal is responsible for seeing the paying players are not harassed, banned and prevented from having a meaningful Gameplay for what they pay for. This may sux from your viewpoint but it is business, so when you enter into Management of a PW then you become part of that business and its rules.

Moon God: I don't at all think that it "sux" to not be permitted to harass players and/or ban them inappropriately, etc. I am also fully aware that we don't own any part of Graal, owner is just the term I chose to use as it is the most widely recognized title. I was simply stating that, being that playerworld renters are also paying customers, at the very least, we should be consulted and asked for our input with regard to the rules that are put into place regarding the way we run things. I don't really have any problem with most of the rules I see - I just feel that, to a certain extent, managers' toes are being stepped on.
Also, as I before stated, it's not as though I plan on taking a rebellious attitude toward the situation and refusing to follow the rules that are being put into place. The forum is a place where you are permitted, even encouraged to express your opinion, and that is simply what I am doing. :)


Spark: My 2 posts were in reference to the all of the rules, not this one in particular. I should've posted them in the main rules thread instead of this one. Sorry for the confusion.

Remember I was one of the longest running Managers of a Playerworld and I of course kept this in mind when the rules were made. I know what it is to be in your shoes of all the PWA, I more than anyone including Spark has gone thru it all over the 2 1/2 years of managing Npulse. So trust me I tried to think of every angle there is from a Managers perspective and not from a PWA perspective. I was the one who pushed for the rule change on the definition of a basic lv3 RC so an lv2 RC could be modified to suit the GPs need to do their job without being an lv3 RC. I realize not all the rules everyone will be happy with but I do work hard to make sure the Managers have the necessary tools they need to manage their Playerworld.

If you have a valid complaint on a rule and can give me a valid reason for one to be changed by all means let me know and explain to me why you want the change. I will be happy to discuss it with you and see what we can work out. If I in the end agree with you then I will go to bat for you and all the Managers 100% on a rule change. But please keep in mind it has to be a justifiable reason with solid valid points to change what we have already done here. We have tried to think of everything to make sure it's fair and workable for the Managers, if you think we missed something by all means lets talk about it and see.

Your arguments are fallacious, Moon God.

You are assuming:
1) You are/were a good manager
-This is debatable.

2) What you think worked for you will work for everyone else
-Each server is a unique environment and should be treated differently.

3) You possess the cognitive capability to "think of every angle there is"
-I don't think you do. I don't think I do, either, so please don't take that as an insult.

wheres Moon Goddess to delete his posts? thats arguing!

I dont delete all arguements, only if they break the rules, this isnt even considered an arguement, it is a discussion.

I have a question, what about those servers that have two owners, and two managers? O ya, and owner refuses to use Admin-Playerworld acct and insists on using his own account.

Sounds good to me. That's all I was attempting to accomplish: that our input be taken into account so that we may help to mold the rules that we have to follow. Thank you Moon God.

On a side note: you and I are the two longest running managers here. (Just thought I'd mention that ;) )

Okay everyone, you may all return to your regularly scheduled reality!

Also, Lance: Very valid points. I haven't been the best manager either. It's good to know that we have people that think like you do in places that you are. :)

You are entitled to your opinion but seeing I have a few years on you may also let me see things in a way you don’t, that you will only gain by life experiences and the wisdom to see them. I don't profess to know it all and is why we discuss rules with all the PWA and not any one person is making rules, plus the fact any and all rules are looked over by Unixmad and Stefan for approval.

Age only gives people the opportunity to become wise - it does not immediately grant them wisdom. It's not the amount of time you have - it's what you do with that opportunity. The truth in this can be seen in the existence of wise teenagers and foolish adults (they are more common than you may at first suppose).

However, you did profess attempting to examine things from every angle, which is rather impossible.

This may or may not be a good thing, but I've already debated that point to death.

Shrug. They don't necessarily know what's going on with the servers other than what they are told. This opens the gate for rules which may or may not be necessary, as they base their perceptions upon what you tell them. Thus, if you come to some erroneous conclusion (e.g. the situation is so bad that some unnecessary rule is needed), then they're rather likely to believe you, and therefore approve it, even though in actuality such a rule would be unnecessary.

Another interesting idea is that they will most probably approve a rule if they do not consider it to be harmful.

What I'm trying to say is that just because a rule is approved by some people, it doesn't necessarily make it valid/justified.

heh
 

I love Tseng When he gets going :cool:

Re: heh
 

What was the point of posting that?

*edit* Now I am making a useless post about talking about something else useless post


:(

He was simply admiring Lance and giving him a compliment...Nothing wrong with that... I don't blame him either... Lance is a nice, intelligent guy... Of course uh, he's not as much of a looker as I am but... *snaps suspenders* he's gettin' there...