Horrible staff guild systems
 

Does anyone else find it mildly retarded that many UC servers have both an (owner) and then 1 or more (co-owner) staff guilds? Same logic applies to manager guilds.

When I see this, I tend to think the owner is an idiot and it's one of those lovely servers you can pretend to be working for them but only working for yourself.

Thoughts?

I like the way new servers are all like begging for scripts, then once they get staff tool (boots, etc...) they only think about having fun, they hire tons of GPs/FAQ/ET when there is not even a single player to care about, then they play, play, play....'Till they realize 6 months are gone and that they only wasted time and money.

Owner is the guy who pays for the server, so if there is a co-owner, it means both paid for the server (so that dude would help)

This apply also for Manager, but I tend to think Co-Manager would then be Head Developer.

I still can't understand why there should be an owner AND a manager.
From the moment you rent a server, it should mean that you have your own projects and that you will work hard to get them realized.

I find it ridiculous when I see some people even saying "Hiring Manager !" :\

For the record, my major beef is with the fact you can't have an owner and a co-owner as it defies the point of 'co'

You should have either

Owner
Asst-Owner

or

co-owner
co-owner

That said, you should only really have one owner and maybe on manager...not this ridiculous multiple owner ****.

I've often said that any UC world that adds an events system first is destined for failure. Soon as that's implace, you'll get idiot staff who will just keep summoning players to their awful levels, pissing off developers who will probably leave as well as pissing off potential developers looking around.

Yep, most people having 'rights' on an UC world often summon you without any reason, or just to prove that they are 'something'

That's just stupid, you're not supposed to showoff everything you make to everyone, it's supposed to be UC so people will play it later

Wrong, when it comes to Graal. Owners are the people that suck up and beg the most to the owner.

I'll give you the title co-owner, manager if "insert specialty here" for me. I've been on UC servers that have had a half dozen co owners at once. For this reason the PWA will only recognize the account attached to the dev server as owner. All the rest of the people tend to change names every few days or a week as they start fighting with each other.

I've also noticed that its usually the scripters that will demand co-owner in return for their work. As far as I'm concerned those servers are also setting themselves up for failure. Too many bosses and not enough people who actually work.

so a server would fail if the owner was a scripter?
:oo:

I agree. Although, they did pay for the playerworld, so i can't really say much. Alot of players that purchase playerworlds do it for the level 4 RC, and minimum management experience they get out of it. Once their first playerworld development project fails, i'd say wait a year or even less, and they will purchase another one. As i said before though, it really is they're money, maybe they realize what there doing, and just don't care?

Your missing the point, and i'm sure the point is that you can't just request ownership because of the work you put into the server. The legal owner is the player who purchased the playerworld. More than 1 Owner is just not right, in my opinion. Most of the time on the newly private playerworlds, players just want ownership for that level 4 RC.

Servers where the original owner is a scripter tend to do well (experienced scripters at least).

If you own your own server, you would tend to be very active working (e.g. KuJi on Graal X).

Though, this could also work the other way if you're not a very mature scripter.

I gave up on labels for jobs. A good owner manages his server and knows exactly who does what, and every staff member should be able to answer questions.

In my opinion UC playerworlds don't really need staff guilds to display the staff opsition because only other staff members would login to the server.

That's not completely true at all. When i had my private playerworld online, there were weeks where we had an average playercount of 25-30. x.x

In general I don't think small projects with only staff should have staff guilds but if a server had 25 - 30 players then I'd agree that staff guilds would be a good idea.

I did not say that. I'm referring to UC servers that a person buys the server but does not have the ability to do any or very little of the work on their own, which is often the case. Matt got my point.

Co means he half owns it so there shouldnt be 1 owner there should be 2 co-owners x.x

I don't think co implies half but equal share.

Look, the point is the fact it doesn't make sense to say there is an owner AND THEN co-owners. It makes no logical sense. Doesn't anyone else see this? :cry:

Heh, those stupid idiots wasting their six months on having fun.

If messing with staff boots is more rewarding than actually building stuff, perhaps you should look at what is wrong with the whole concept. With a bit of luck this testbed server thing is going to let people get the whole goofing-off thing out of their system before they start to actually develop. Somehow I doubt anyone is going to let them, though, having fun is only for real admins. :cool:

If I was starting any kind of project big enough to require actual management, I would hope that someone else was going to step up to managing it so I did not have to do that in addition to actually developing. Cannot blame those guys for trying, I guess.

Well yeah you could still hire a manager, but I hope you'd then be that one guy to decide what theme this server will be about, then the manager would just make sure to hire the right persons and decide the steps to get there.


There is no point in renting a server without any (personal) project. When you pay to develop, I'm sure you wish to accomplish something, or maybe just learn.