The best staff organization system ever.

[Googi]

This thread contains the best staff organization system ever. If you're a server manager, implementing this system will greatly reduce corruption on your server. However, you won't actually implement is because you are afraid of losing the power that this system would require you to divest.

The system is based on the following premises:

- Nobody (including, of course, myself) is truly immune from being corrupted by the possession of power. Being corrupted by power is an inevitability for all who possess it. Of course, the server managers reading this believe they are specially immune to this rule (they aren't), and that they will be able to "get tough" with the guy they've been friends with for over a year when it turns out that he's corrupted (they won't).

- There is no reason developers should have the tools of rule enforcement simply because they are developers.

Accepting these premises, corruption can be reduced by reducing the power possessed by players (and in particular, individual players).

1. The enforcement of rules should be outsourced to NPCs as much as possible. There should be as many anti-scamming and auto-hack-detection mechanisms in place. On 2K1, this would mean owner tags on rocks. Whenever any kind of problem arises with any form of bug abuse or related problems with players, the immediate answer must always, always, always, be to try to script your way out.

2. Developers would be entitled only to powers related to developments (pretty much just warpto, FTP and update level). As in, they wouldn't be able to ban and jail.

3. The server manager shouldn't enforce rules on average players (which means the server manager also wouldn't be banning or jailing non-staff players).

4. Log as much as possible. If you can log it, you should log it. The only exception would be if logging something would cause unacceptable stress on your NPCServer.

5. Ultimately, there still needs to be something like GPs. Rather than being appointed, there should be an elected GP council, with members elected until they quit, resign, or are recalled (so there would be no set elections for the entire council* or anything, only individual recall elections.) Any player could be elected, including developers and the server manager. The council would create the rules as well as enforce them (but obviously wouldn't be allowed to change the recall rules). Many people challenge that electing staff is unlikely to result in the best candidate being picked. This is true, but the record of the staff-appointment system is pretty dismal in that regard too. This at least allows the players to get the kind of rules and enforcement they want, and if they mess up then it's their own responsibility.

Individual GPs wouldn't enforce the rules directly, but rather players would report infractions and the GP council would examine the evidence, both that produced by the player(s) and the logs (see proposal 4). Then they would vote on whether a rule infraction has occured and what the punishment should be (obviously they wouldn't all gather together in a room and vote. Voting would probably take place throughout the day, where one GP tells another about it, then that GP checks out the evidence and makes a vote, until a consensus is formed). Because of the increased work in enforcing the rules, it is probably best that punishments tend to be fairly harsh, and the council may even choose to make a rule against ridiculous accusations.

For things like hacking where immediate measures are required, a single GP can temporarily ban the offender, after which evidence would be looked at and a vote would take place among the other GPs.

GPs wouldn't enforce the rules on themselves, rather the server manager would. Alternately, it could also be possible to have an appointee or someone elected to deal with GPs breaking the rules and/or GP corruption.

* If implemented on a server already up and running, then an initial election for the entire council should take place (I prefer a system where each player can vote for a number of candidates equal to the total number of council positions available, but being creative is fine too). If implemented on a new server, the initial council would have to be appointees.

6. FAQ and Events Team (if the server has them) would be hired pretty much like normal. Usually be a chief appointed by the manager. Of course, neither them nor their chiefs would have enforcement powers. (Although events team members would be able to remove disrupters from events, but not jail them. See proposal 1.)

Notable problems:

- The recall mechanism remains undefined (Maybe I'll come up with one tomorrow)

- People can get their friends from other servers to vote for them or the candidate they like. Can be dealt with somewhat by requiring voters to have a certain amount of online time (the second-place candidate could pretty much be relied on to make sure the winning candidate won with legitimate votes.) But even then there's problems like ex-players coming back just to vote, etc.

- Whoever oversees the GPs could try to use their power to manipulate their actions. The threat is lessened by having an elected and recallable overseer. Ultimately, it may really be better to have the other GPs deal with allegations against a GP. The suggestion of an overseer is the suggestion I am the least certain of in this entire document.

Since these proposals will never actually be implemented on a server, this thread isn't really a suggestion but rather a challenge for anyone who disagrees with me to prove that the current system is superior or to create their own system and prove that it's superior to this one.

[killerogue]

I disagree with you on that these proposals will never actually be implemented. As I have read them and decided to use these ideas with minor edits/extras to them. Googi you are always a genius. ;D

[Gambet]

Originally Posted by Googi

This thread contains the best staff organization system ever. If you're a server manager, implementing this system will greatly reduce corruption on your server. However, you won't actually implement is because you are afraid of losing the power that this system would require you to divest.

Just because you call something the best does not make it so. It may be the best in your opinion, but it's quite egotistical of you to go as far as to say that this system is the best ever.

Originally Posted by Googi

- Nobody (including, of course, myself) is truly immune from being corrupted by the possession of power. Being corrupted by power is an inevitability for all who possess it. Of course, the server managers reading this believe they are specially immune to this rule (they aren't), and that they will be able to "get tough" with the guy they've been friends with for over a year when it turns out that he's corrupted (they won't).

It's not really that they feel that they are "immune" to corruptivity, but moreso that they are just too lazy to go the extra measure to prevent it, or they have done as much as they could.

Originally Posted by Googi

- There is no reason developers should have the tools of rule enforcement simply because they are developers.

Quite a broad statement, which doesn't really apply to all developmental positions. Coders have the ability to develop their own tools of rule enforcement. You could tell them not to, but could you really get mad at them for banning a trainer user/jailing a trouble maker that is currently on the server, not listening to you at all, and no one else is around to handle the situation?

Originally Posted by Googi

1. The enforcement of rules should be outsourced to NPCs as much as possible. There should be as many anti-scamming and auto-hack-detection mechanisms in place. On 2K1, this would mean owner tags on rocks. Whenever any kind of problem arises with any form of bug abuse or related problems with players, the immediate answer must always, always, always, be to try to script your way out.

This seems more like server security advice, and not advice on a staff organization system.

Originally Posted by Googi

2. Developers would be entitled only to powers related to developments (pretty much just warpto, FTP and update level). As in, they wouldn't be able to ban and jail.

As I stated above, this is another broad statement that doesn't apply to all development positions, since you don't need to have the RC right to ban players as a coder to actually ban a player, since you can code yourself a police system.

Originally Posted by Googi

3. The server manager shouldn't enforce rules on average players (which means the server manager also wouldn't be banning or jailing non-staff players).

The server manager shouldn't enforce the rules? Does anyone else see something wrong with this statement?

Originally Posted by Googi

4. Log as much as possible. If you can log it, you should log it. The only exception would be if logging something would cause unacceptable stress on your NPCServer.

Once again, more security advice instead of advice on a staff organization system.

Originally Posted by Googi

Stuff about number 5

First off, you say that the server manager shouldn't enforce the rules, then in this section you state that the GP wouldn't enforce the rules, but the server manager would? Your statements are quite vague and contradictory, or atleast were worded in such a way.

Secondly, this council of players that basically decide the fate of rule breakers is by far the worst idea a server could ever implement. Graal is based on popularity and how many butts you can kiss to become popular. If your best friend broke a rule and you were to decide his fate, I'm pretty sure you would let him go. And, even if you wouldn't, over 50% of the Graal population certainly would, thus making the system useless.

GP's are around to enforce rules and keep servers as friendly as possible. If you log on a server and everyone is cursing off the top of their lungs and have profanity in their nicknames, then obviously something is wrong with the staff team on that server.

A server should never have to rely on its players to do all the work for them.

Originally Posted by Googi

6. FAQ and Events Team (if the server has them) would be hired pretty much like normal. Usually be a chief appointed by the manager. Of course, neither them nor their chiefs would have enforcement powers. (Although events team members would be able to remove disrupters from events, but not jail them. See proposal 1.)

Why would Events Team members have rights to jail anyways?

I've seen events jails before on a few servers, which I found quite ridiculous to be honest with you, but besides that, an Events Team member shouldn't have rights to jail anyways.

Originally Posted by Googi

Notable problems:

Wait, I thought you said this was the best staff organization system? How can anything be deemed the best when the creator sees problem with his/her own system?

Originally Posted by Googi

- People can get their friends from other servers to vote for them or the candidate they like. Can be dealt with somewhat by requiring voters to have a certain amount of online time (the second-place candidate could pretty much be relied on to make sure the winning candidate won with legitimate votes.) But even then there's problems like ex-players coming back just to vote, etc.

Yes, this supports my popularity statement, and my friendship statement.

Originally Posted by Googi

- Whoever oversees the GPs could try to use their power to manipulate their actions. The threat is lessened by having an elected and recallable overseer. Ultimately, it may really be better to have the other GPs deal with allegations against a GP. The suggestion of an overseer is the suggestion I am the least certain of in this entire document.

Ultimately, it would be better to use the standard GP system with a Chief in charge.

Originally Posted by Googi

Since these proposals will never actually be implemented on a server, this thread isn't really a suggestion but rather a challenge for anyone who disagrees with me to prove that the current system is superior or to create their own system and prove that it's superior to this one.

Oh, you considered it a challenge to prove your system wasn't as perfect as you claimed it to be?


Your proposals are quite preposterous. Why would any manager have random players decide the outcome of rule breakers? If you can't trust the people in your police force, then they shouldn't be staff in the first place.

You can't stop corruptivity, no matter how hard you try, and this system won't lessen corruptivity at all.


You can even limit everyones rights so much that they have to be dependant on the server manager for specific rights to things when they may need it, and even that won't stop corruptivity, because all it takes is a coder to have rights to one wNPC of their own to be able to reek havoc on the server.

So are you now going to suggest limiting the NPC rights of coders to absolutely nothing? And to limit the FTP rights of level makers to nothing?

Because the only ultimate way of stopping corruption is by giving nobody rights on your server and doing all of the work yourself. Inconvenient? Very. Free from corruption? Of course, unless you turn corrupt and ruin your own server.


You need to understand that a staff team is more than a team, but a family. Each staff member should have the will to help each other out, to make the server run more smoothly. You can't just limit all of your staff members rights to the point where it becomes uncomfortable to work on that server and thus have them leave because they can't develop at all without having you around all the time.

You can't make entire assumptions just because a few people go corrupt. Many of the current staff systems work perfectly, but you are just never 100% immune to corruptivity. There will always be that one staff member that you hire that will end up turning corrupt, and you can't do anything about it.


You want to know the best way to not have to worry about staff going corrupt? Keep weekly backups of all files in your FTP folder (which should include the scripts and levels and graphics and so forth). So, if a staff member were to corruptively delete anything, you could easily back it up and notify globals to punish this person for doing so, thus, they get in trouble, and the server is not harmed in any way. Of course, you could have the staff that corruptively reset players and so forth, but you could design systems to backup player attributes after X amount of time and so forth. If that's not efficient to you, then you can always award the players that were unfortunate enough to be in the middle of that corrupt staff member's wrath with some free items to help them back on track and so forth.

There are tons of other methods of lessening corruptivity than to go as far as change your entire organization system. If your a responsible manager, then you shouldn't have any worries. It's the manager's responsibility to make sure that if any staff went corrupt and messed with the players items or messed with the servers files that they would be able to backup those items/files and thus nothing would have been harmed.

It all depends on the type of manager that is managing the server.

[HoudiniMan]

I've been working with some servers to redefine the role of GPs.

In my happy system GPs have no RC, and use a well-developed staff tool for jailings (time jail, goal jail [rocks, maze, etc], and emergency [trainer users])

They also have a tool available to them to jail a person for <reason> they feel is bannable, and that person will remain jailed until a GP Captain (gets RC) evaluates and either bans or releases (or jails for some time) the offender.

It's a much more hands-in-the-game system where players police themselves. Even hiring a very corrupt person can lead to a WORST case scenario of a server having all players jailed until somebody with RC sorts it out. This lets people hire GPs without trusting them with the world.

I still think the average aged player on Graal responds more to "answering to the boss" than "keep myself in line" by a large margin.

My system allows a lot of people a first chance as staff due to the lower risk of trusting them, and even a server with 50 GPs, although far too many, doesn't really experience any downside.

Not to mention the old "make a trouble maker a deputy and see the wonders" scenario.

Enough mild derailing of Googi's thread though, if anybody has questions or would like to think about trying this out, forum PM me.

[Crono]

Originally Posted by Googi

The system is based on the following premises:

- Nobody (including, of course, myself) is truly immune from being corrupted by the possession of power. Being corrupted by power is an inevitability for all who possess it. Of course, the server managers reading this believe they are specially immune to this rule (they aren't), and that they will be able to "get tough" with the guy they've been friends with for over a year when it turns out that he's corrupted (they won't).

I'm immune! Test me.

[pooper200000]

Ill do it testing status Mentally Ill! jking what we ned now is to have houdinimans googis and the current all mled into one that would be the system to use!

[Polo]

Originally Posted by Googi

- Nobody (including, of course, myself) is truly immune from being corrupted by the possession of power. Being corrupted by power is an inevitability for all who possess it. Of course, the server managers reading this believe they are specially immune to this rule (they aren't), and that they will be able to "get tough" with the guy they've been friends with for over a year when it turns out that he's corrupted (they won't).

I can't necessarily agree with that. I've personally banned my best friend of 16 years, when I discovered they had been using a trainer (and yes, we are still friends).

Some of your points are pretty obvious, some of them are just... odd, and point 5 isn't feasible as it would take up too much time in all the beurocratic pointless stuff. In reality, if someone feels they were jailed unfairly, it would be handled by the higher GP's, which in effect is what your council idea is, except it's only called on when there is a dispute.

The idea that players should decide the rules is just plain flawed. If we tried that in real life, 5 year old kids would be buying 18 certificate films and games; smoking, drinking and driving would all be legal at a much lower age; and we'd have public hangings again. It's not hard to see why you need sensible and level headed people to determine the rules instead.

On a side note, what HoudiniMan said makes a lot of sense.

[Googi]

Originally Posted by Gambet

Just because you call something the best does not make it so. It may be the best in your opinion, but it's quite egotistical of you to go as far as to say that this system is the best ever.

It's "the best" in the same way that your Graal review was "official".

Originally Posted by Gambet

It's not really that they feel that they are "immune" to corruptivity, but moreso that they are just too lazy to go the extra measure to prevent it, or they have done as much as they could.

I don't see many corrupt staff admit that they are corrupt.

Originally Posted by Gambet

Quite a broad statement, which doesn't really apply to all developmental positions. Coders have the ability to develop their own tools of rule enforcement. You could tell them not to, but could you really get mad at them for banning a trainer user/jailing a trouble maker that is currently on the server, not listening to you at all, and no one else is around to handle the situation?

Creating their own tools of enforcement would be power abuse.

Originally Posted by Gambet

This seems more like server security advice, and not advice on a staff organization system.

It's based on the premise that humans are inherently corruptable whereas NPCs are not, so it's always better to have an NPC script be in a position of enforcement rather than an actual human.

Originally Posted by Gambet

As I stated above, this is another broad statement that doesn't apply to all development positions, since you don't need to have the RC right to ban players as a coder to actually ban a player, since you can code yourself a police system.

See above, doing so would be power abuse. This is technically another flaw in the system but scripters can already do this under the current system anyways.

Originally Posted by Gambet

The server manager shouldn't enforce the rules? Does anyone else see something wrong with this statement?

Want to give some reasons?

Originally Posted by Gambet

Once again, more security advice instead of advice on a staff organization system.

It's there because it's relevant to proposal 5.

Originally Posted by Gambet

First off, you say that the server manager shouldn't enforce the rules, then in this section you state that the GP wouldn't enforce the rules, but the server manager would? Your statements are quite vague and contradictory, or atleast were worded in such a way.

The server manager would deal with rule infractions by GPs and only by GPs. Like I said though, this is the most contentious suggestion in the document.

Originally Posted by Gambet

Secondly, this council of players that basically decide the fate of rule breakers is by far the worst idea a server could ever implement. Graal is based on popularity and how many butts you can kiss to become popular.

Even in the worst case scenario, you'd have to kiss a lot more butts to get rule immunity than you have to in the current system. And players can always recall a GP if they think he's been corrupted.

Originally Posted by Gambet

If your best friend broke a rule and you were to decide his fate, I'm pretty sure you would let him go.

This would only be relevant if appointed GPs didn't have friends. This problem is largely dealt with by the fact that a player's fate is in the hands of multiple GPs rather than just one. Of course, it's still possible that a player might be good friends with most or all the GPs, but it's less likely than the player being friends with just one GP.

Originally Posted by Gambet

GP's are around to enforce rules and keep servers as friendly as possible. If you log on a server and everyone is cursing off the top of their lungs and have profanity in their nicknames, then obviously something is wrong with the staff team on that server.

See proposal 1. The way to deal with profanity is to script yourself out.

Originally Posted by Gambet

A server should never have to rely on its players to do all the work for them.

Unless you're counting the staff as players (in which case players are already doing all the work on almost all servers), I don't see how players are doing all the work in this system.

Originally Posted by Gambet

Why would Events Team members have rights to jail anyways?

They shouldn't, but it seems to happen sometimes anyways (as you said).

Originally Posted by Gambet

Yes, this supports my popularity statement, and my friendship statement.

Which is why you need countermeasures.

Originally Posted by Gambet

Ultimately, it would be better to use the standard GP system with a Chief in charge.

Except that it has more room for abuse.

Originally Posted by Gambet

Your proposals are quite preposterous. Why would any manager have random players decide the outcome of rule breakers? If you can't trust the people in your police force, then they shouldn't be staff in the first place.

They would (hypothetically) implement it out of recognition of the observation that players have statistically been better at detecting staff corruption than server managers.

Originally Posted by Gambet

You can't stop corruptivity, no matter how hard you try, and this system won't lessen corruptivity at all.

Except that it will lessen it.

Originally Posted by Gambet

You can even limit everyones rights so much that they have to be dependant on the server manager for specific rights to things when they may need it, and even that won't stop corruptivity, because all it takes is a coder to have rights to one wNPC of their own to be able to reek havoc on the server.

I'm not talking about developer power abuse in this thread, but rather enforcement corruption. For developer power abuse a seperate system pertaining to developers would have to be created.

Originally Posted by Gambet

So are you now going to suggest limiting the NPC rights of coders to absolutely nothing? And to limit the FTP rights of level makers to nothing?

Because the only ultimate way of stopping corruption is by giving nobody rights on your server and doing all of the work yourself. Inconvenient? Very. Free from corruption? Of course, unless you turn corrupt and ruin your own server.

See above about developer power abuse.

Originally Posted by Gambet

You need to understand that a staff team is more than a team, but a family.

No, they're a team. Feel-good statements are meaningless.

Originally Posted by Gambet

A bunch of stuff about developers abusing power

Yes, obviously this system doesn't do anything about developers abusing FTP access, etc. because it's only designed to deal with enforcement corruption.

[Crono]

5 year old kids would be buying 18 certificate films and games; smoking, drinking

And the problem is...?

[Draenin]

Ideas duly noted.

[Shiftk03-]

Silly mongooses. This was all a ruse just so Googi could get rock ownership tags.

DOWN WITH THE TAGS!

[Draenin]

With Konidias running 2k1, chances are slim.

[Gambet]

Originally Posted by Googi

It's "the best" in the same way that your Graal review was "official".

In no way are the two the same. You claim your method to be the best, while I just used the title in my review because I didn't want to think too much about a catchy title. In no way was mine egotistical, nor did it claim to be superior to any and all other reviews.

Originally Posted by Googi

I don't see many corrupt staff admit that they are corrupt.

You can tell if a staff member is corrupt by their actions.

Originally Posted by Googi

Creating their own tools of enforcement would be power abuse.

Which would also fall into the category of corruptivity, what's your point? If the staff member is corrupt, do you think they'd care?

Originally Posted by Googi

It's based on the premise that humans are inherently corruptable whereas NPCs are not, so it's always better to have an NPC script be in a position of enforcement rather than an actual human.

I must disagree with you. NPC's only do what you tell it to given a certain situation, but not all situations have the same scenario, and there are always different cases where a player didn't actually break any rules. NPC's can't think for themselves, thus where the problem would occur. Not many NPC's, if any at all, are 100% full-proof and work exactly as they were designed to, with no bugs, no flaws, and no room for improvement. Not to mention the fact that it takes a human to script the NPC in the first place.

Originally Posted by Googi

See above, doing so would be power abuse. This is technically another flaw in the system but scripters can already do this under the current system anyways.

Yes, they can, making your system no better than the current one.

Originally Posted by Googi

Want to give some reasons?

Do I want you to give me reasons on why a manager should not enforce any rules? Did you even read this statement at all?

So unixmad, being the manager of Graal and all, shouldn't enforce any of the Graal Online rules to its consumers?

I don't care what reasons you may have, just the idea is ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Googi

It's there because it's relevant to proposal 5.

And proposal five was also ridiculous to begin with.

Originally Posted by Googi

The server manager would deal with rule infractions by GPs and only by GPs. Like I said though, this is the most contentious suggestion in the document.

Server managers should deal with rule infractions by any staff, not just GPs.

Originally Posted by Googi

Even in the worst case scenario, you'd have to kiss a lot more butts to get rule immunity than you have to in the current system. And players can always recall a GP if they think he's been corrupted.

I believe I'm not the only one in this thread to disagree with your proposal 5 *points @ Master Storm*.

Originally Posted by Googi

This would only be relevant if appointed GPs didn't have friends. This problem is largely dealt with by the fact that a player's fate is in the hands of multiple GPs rather than just one. Of course, it's still possible that a player might be good friends with most or all the GPs, but it's less likely than the player being friends with just one GP.

What do you think the GPs are for? If one GP jails someone, the person in jail can have their case reviewed by other GPs, and even the Chief if it gets to that point. There is no need for any help from the regular players.

Originally Posted by Googi

See proposal 1. The way to deal with profanity is to script yourself out.

The current word filters filter words that are not profane, but rather, have letters of profanity in them, but the meaning of the word is far from profane, thus making the word filter systems poorly done. As I stated above, NPCs only do what you tell them to do, they can't think for themselves.

Originally Posted by Googi

Unless you're counting the staff as players (in which case players are already doing all the work on almost all servers), I don't see how players are doing all the work in this system.

No, the staff are not regular players.

Originally Posted by Googi

Which is why you need countermeasures.

And your system does not supply them very effectively.

Originally Posted by Googi

Except that it has more room for abuse.

A lot of things have room for abuse. You can't always prevent it.

Originally Posted by Googi

They would (hypothetically) implement it out of recognition of the observation that players have statistically been better at detecting staff corruption than server managers.

Does that make it right? Certainly not. That just means that the server manager shouldn't be server manager.

Originally Posted by Googi

Except that it will lessen it.

No, it wouldn't. This would take too much work for very little outcome.

Originally Posted by Googi

I'm not talking about developer power abuse in this thread, but rather enforcement corruption. For developer power abuse a seperate system pertaining to developers would have to be created.

No, you're talking about a staff organization system. A staff organization system would require the organization of developemental staffs' rights.

Originally Posted by Googi

No, they're a team. Feel-good statements are meaningless.

I didn't say they weren't a team. And feel-good statements are far from meaningless. It's not a feel-good statement, but more of the truth. If you don't function as a family, which is ultimately a team itself, then you won't get much done without problems. Each person should look out for one another, as would a family. All of the weight on a specific subject should never be held by one person alone.

Originally Posted by Googi

Yes, obviously this system doesn't do anything about developers abusing FTP access, etc. because it's only designed to deal with enforcement corruption.

Enforcement corruption?

But I thought the title of the thread was about a staff organization system? I must have been mistaken

Quite humorous how you tend to change the topic of your thread when you see me disproving your points. As I stated before, your system is far from perfect, and definitely not "the best".

[jake13jake]

The elected GP Council sounds like it would be good for roleplaying, but I don't see much of it for anything else. As for the "script your way out" thing. I do that -a lot- and don't get much recognition for it (particularly from the GP Admin). I scripted it so people can't block a 2-tile wide path. I scripted it so people have to wait a certain amount of time after login before movement and HD go into effect (lag-throughs), despitethat I absolutely hate the fact that I even have to do that. There should be something in gscript that could move an NPCW to the end of the loading queue. I recently scripted a way to detect when people are laming stats, however, I leave it to the GPs to enforce it because who knows why a player's doing what these days.

[Draenin]

Originally Posted by Gambet

In no way are the two the same. You claim your method to be the best, while I just used the title in my review because I didn't want to think too much about a catchy title.

Isn't that what Googi did too? Perhaps I am missing out on something here.

Originally Posted by Gambet

Which would also fall into the category of corruptivity, what's your point? If the staff member is corrupt, do you think they'd care?

It's not a matter of whether they care or not. Point is that scripters being allowed to script their own tools shouldn't be allowed. Otherwise, you have Maloria.

Originally Posted by Gambet

I must disagree with you. NPC's only do what you tell it to given a certain situation, but not all situations have the same scenario, and there are always different cases where a player didn't actually break any rules. NPC's can't think for themselves, thus where the problem would occur. Not many NPC's, if any at all, are 100% full-proof and work exactly as they were designed to, with no bugs, no flaws, and no room for improvement. Not to mention the fact that it takes a human to script the NPC in the first place.

Tha'ts why you add onto them and improve their conditional actions.

Originally Posted by Gambet

So unixmad, being the manager of Graal and all, shouldn't enforce any of the Graal Online rules to its consumers?

Googi never made any mention of Unixmad enforcing rules. That much happening should be a given.

Originally Posted by Gambet

I don't care what reasons you may have, just the idea is ridiculous.

Because they don't coincide with yours?

Originally Posted by Gambet

And proposal five was also ridiculous to begin with.

Sounded pretty good to me.

Originally Posted by Gambet

Server managers should deal with rule infractions by any staff, not just GPs.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Gambet

What do you think the GPs are for? If one GP jails someone, the person in jail can have their case reviewed by other GPs, and even the Chief if it gets to that point. There is no need for any help from the regular players.

I take it you didn't follow that sentence well. Googi wasn't proposing that players have a hand in getting someone unbanned. Just that there should be multiple GPs for handling situations.

Originally Posted by Gambet

The current word filters filter words that are not profane, but rather, have letters of profanity in them, but the meaning of the word is far from profane, thus making the word filter systems poorly done.

The system is not poorly done. Aggrivating, maybe, but not poorly done.

Originally Posted by Gambet

No, the staff are not regular players.

That's usually how they start out.

Originally Posted by Gambet

And your system does not supply them very effectively.

Ever tried it?

Originally Posted by Gambet

A lot of things have room for abuse. You can't always prevent it.

But you can still take precautions against it.

Originally Posted by Gambet

Does that make it right? Certainly not. That just means that the server manager shouldn't be server manager.

I can think of a few servers where corruption wasn't recognized, and it drove the server into the ground.

Originally Posted by Gambet

No, it wouldn't. This would take too much work for very little outcome.

I can't imagine the outcome being negligible.

Originally Posted by Gambet

No, you're talking about a staff organization system. A staff organization system would require the organization of developemental staffs' rights.

No, Googi's talking more about preventing staff corruption. That's why 2/3 of the idea proposal was aimed at non-developers.

Originally Posted by Gambet

And feel-good statements are far from meaningless.

Unless you're dying of leukemia, yeah, they are.

Originally Posted by Gambet

Each person should look out for one another, as would a family. All of the weight on a specific subject should never be held by one person alone.

Contradictory words, coming from one who certainly seemed to do just that not too long ago on Kingdoms.

Originally Posted by Gambet

But I thought the title of the thread was about a staff organization system? I must have been mistaken

You were.

Originally Posted by Gambet

Quite humorous how you tend to change the topic of your thread when you see me disproving your points.

Quite humorous how you're picking at Googi for changing the subject when you're the one bringing up all the stuff about FTP abuse in the first place. Googi has no choice in that situation but to change the subject in order to meet your words with a proper rebuttal. Quit laying traps you can't properly arm.

Originally Posted by Gambet

As I stated before, your system is far from perfect, and definitely not "the best".

Just like your review wasn't "official."

[Googi]

Originally Posted by Gambet

In no way are the two the same. You claim your method to be the best, while I just used the title in my review because I didn't want to think too much about a catchy title. In no way was mine egotistical, nor did it claim to be superior to any and all other reviews.

"The best" is a joke. A parody of Maddox's "best page in the universe", you're probably even aware of this, and if not, are at least aware that it isn't a serious claim, but are playing dumb so you can try to attack me on technicalities.

Originally Posted by Gambet

You can tell if a staff member is corrupt by their actions.

Oh wow, what an astute observation.

Originally Posted by Gambet

Which would also fall into the category of corruptivity, what's your point? If the staff member is corrupt, do you think they'd care?

Didn't I already tell you that the post doesn't deal with developer corruption?

Originally Posted by Gambet

I must disagree with you. NPC's only do what you tell it to given a certain situation, but not all situations have the same scenario, and there are always different cases where a player didn't actually break any rules. NPC's can't think for themselves, thus where the problem would occur. Not many NPC's, if any at all, are 100% full-proof and work exactly as they were designed to, with no bugs, no flaws, and no room for improvement. Not to mention the fact that it takes a human to script the NPC in the first place.

I fail to see how this makes human enforcement superior to NPC enforcement except in cases where NPC enforcement is not possible.

Originally Posted by Gambet

Yes, they can, making your system no better than the current one.

If enforcement corruption is reduced and developer corruption remains constant in my system, my system is still superior.

Originally Posted by Gambet

Do I want you to give me reasons on why a manager should not enforce any rules? Did you even read this statement at all?

Whether or not the server manager enforces the rules on the playerbase isn't really ultra-relevant, seeing as server managers already generally hardly ever deal with matters of enforcement. Having them not do so merely results in a marginal decrease in corruption potential. It's part of the document because a marginal decrease is still a decrease.

Originally Posted by Gambet

So unixmad, being the manager of Graal and all, shouldn't enforce any of the Graal Online rules to its consumers?

Yeah, he shouldn't. Is this some kind of trap to get me to say something bad about Unixmad?

Originally Posted by Gambet

I don't care what reasons you may have, just the idea is ridiculous.

Yeah, you're sure proving a lot there.

Originally Posted by Gambet

Server managers should deal with rule infractions by any staff, not just GPs.

A technical error on my part, what I mean is that they wouldn't deal with non-staff players.

Originally Posted by Gambet

I believe I'm not the only one in this thread to disagree with your proposal 5 *points @ Master Storm*.

Want me to set him up the pwn too? I'll do it at the end of this post.

Originally Posted by Gambet

What do you think the GPs are for? If one GP jails someone, the person in jail can have their case reviewed by other GPs, and even the Chief if it gets to that point. There is no need for any help from the regular players.

Except that in practice corrupt actions are rarely overruled.

Originally Posted by Gambet

The current word filters filter words that are not profane, but rather, have letters of profanity in them, but the meaning of the word is far from profane, thus making the word filter systems poorly done. As I stated above, NPCs only do what you tell them to do, they can't think for themselves.

This sounds like something that can be fixed scriptually. Really, NPCs are the only realistic way of dealing with profanity. Surely you don't deny that the overwhelming majority of profanity infractions go unpunished.

Originally Posted by Gambet

And your system does not supply them very effectively.

So make better ones?

Originally Posted by Gambet

A lot of things have room for abuse. You can't always prevent it.

You can lessen it.

Originally Posted by Gambet

Does that make it right? Certainly not. That just means that the server manager shouldn't be server manager.

But they are.

Originally Posted by Gambet

No, it wouldn't. This would take too much work for very little outcome.

Nobody's forcing anyone to be a GP.

Originally Posted by Gambet

No, you're talking about a staff organization system. A staff organization system would require the organization of developemental staffs' rights.

It does mention the rights they should have, it just doesn't deal with how to reduce developer corruption because I haven't come up with a way to do so yet.

Originally Posted by Gambet

I didn't say they weren't a team. And feel-good statements are far from meaningless. It's not a feel-good statement, but more of the truth. If you don't function as a family, which is ultimately a team itself, then you won't get much done without problems. Each person should look out for one another, as would a family. All of the weight on a specific subject should never be held by one person alone.

If anything, the best analogy would be to say that a playerworld's administration should function as a business or government.

Originally Posted by Gambet

Enforcement corruption?

Corruption pertaining to the enforcement of rules.

Originally Posted by Gambet

But I thought the title of the thread was about a staff organization system? I must have been mistaken

Quite humorous how you tend to change the topic of your thread when you see me disproving your points. As I stated before, your system is far from perfect, and definitely not "the best".

Yeah. Yeah, that's it. I really meant for this system to deal with things like FTP abuse even though I didn't mention them at all.

Originally Posted by Polo

Some of your points are pretty obvious, some of them are just... odd, and point 5 isn't feasible as it would take up too much time in all the beurocratic pointless stuff.

It's still less work than development.

Originally Posted by Polo

In reality, if someone feels they were jailed unfairly, it would be handled by the higher GP's, which in effect is what your council idea is, except it's only called on when there is a dispute.

Except that as I said above, corrupt actions hardly ever get overruled.

Originally Posted by Polo

The idea that players should decide the rules is just plain flawed. If we tried that in real life, 5 year old kids would be buying 18 certificate films and games; smoking, drinking and driving would all be legal at a much lower age; and we'd have public hangings again.

Players aren't deciding the rules. People they elect are deciding the rules. Kind of like, you know, in real life.

[Crono]

Originally Posted by Gerami

I'm immune! Test me.

^-- I clearly win as this wasn't argued. Therefor one of your premises = false.

[Sulukra]

Originally Posted by Gerami

I'm immune! Test me.

Thats what you said before you got RC on -insert servername here- and banned everyone on account of that they attempted to flame your pluffy.

I FINE SIR, BEG TO DIFFER.

[Crono]

Originally Posted by Sulukra

Thats what you said before you got RC on -insert servername here- and banned everyone on account of that they attempted to flame your pluffy.

I FINE SIR, BEG TO DIFFER.

LIES I SAY!

:P

[Googi]

Originally Posted by Gerami

I clearly win as this wasn't argued.

I would have defeated you, but sadly Sam deleted the evidence I was going to use.

[Shaun]

Originally Posted by Googi

- Nobody (including, of course, myself) is truly immune from being corrupted by the possession of power. Being corrupted by power is an inevitability for all who possess it.

What about Tom Bombadil?

[Gambet]

Originally Posted by Googi

"The best" is a joke. A parody of Maddox's "best page in the universe", you're probably even aware of this, and if not, are at least aware that it isn't a serious claim, but are playing dumb so you can try to attack me on technicalities.

This isn't about attacking you, it's about disproving your points since you seemed to have openly "challenged" everyone to do so. I wouldn't have even bothered with this thread if you weren't so egotistical about it.

Originally Posted by Googi

Oh wow, what an astute observation.

Indeed it was.

Originally Posted by Googi

Didn't I already tell you that the post doesn't deal with developer corruption?

Then stop making such broad statements and be more specific on what you claim will lessen corruptivity under.

Originally Posted by Googi

I fail to see how this makes human enforcement superior to NPC enforcement except in cases where NPC enforcement is not possible.

One can argue this back and forth for hours. It's best if we don't.

Originally Posted by Googi

If enforcement corruption is reduced and developer corruption remains constant in my system, my system is still superior.

I'm not supporting your system nor the current system, because there is no current system that every server uses. Each server has its own ways of controlling things.

Originally Posted by Googi

Yeah, he shouldn't. Is this some kind of trap to get me to say something bad about Unixmad?

No, just an example.

Nice to know that you believe business managers shouldn't enforce any rules. Very interesting, indeed.

Originally Posted by Googi

A technical error on my part, what I mean is that they wouldn't deal with non-staff players.

Server managers still have to deal with the players when problems arise in which only they will be able to handle the situation.

Originally Posted by Googi

Want me to set him up the pwn too? I'll do it at the end of this post.

Here we go again with your ego. This isn't about setting anyone up with the "pwn" or whatever you want to call it. As egotistical as your post was, you made an open challenge, and I've taken the liberty of accepting it by disproving your system from being as perfect as you claim it to be.

Originally Posted by Googi

Except that in practice corrupt actions are rarely overruled.

Once again, that doesn't make it right.

Originally Posted by Googi

This sounds like something that can be fixed scriptually. Really, NPCs are the only realistic way of dealing with profanity. Surely you don't deny that the overwhelming majority of profanity infractions go unpunished.

No, they are not the only way, they are just a very efficient way of doing so.

Originally Posted by Googi

It does mention the rights they should have, it just doesn't deal with how to reduce developer corruption because I haven't come up with a way to do so yet.

That's because you can't come up with a way to remove developer corruption. All you ultimately need is rights to one wNPC and you have quite a lot of power if you have the proper scripting abilities.

Originally Posted by Googi

Except that as I said above, corrupt actions hardly ever get overruled.

And that still doesn't make it right.

Originally Posted by Googi

Players aren't deciding the rules. People they elect are deciding the rules. Kind of like, you know, in real life.

Not even close. You can't compare the amount of people that vote during elections "in real life" to the players that vote for elections on a server on Graal. What I mean by this is that "in real life", you most likely don't know over 60% of the voters, whereas with Graal voting on servers, since the playercount on each server is so low, you would most likely know over 60% of the voters, thus turning it to a huge popularity contest.

You can't compare politics to voting on a Graal server.

[HoudiniMan]

Quiet side note: We need a better way of debating than having 600 quotes from the last post

[Googi]

Originally Posted by Gambet

This isn't about attacking you, it's about disproving your points since you seemed to have openly "challenged" everyone to do so. I wouldn't have even bothered with this thread if you weren't so egotistical about it.

Yeah, pretending to not realize that the title isn't serious really disproves a lot.

Originally Posted by Gambet

Indeed it was.

What's that? The sky is blue!?

Originally Posted by Gambet

Then stop making such broad statements and be more specific on what you claim will lessen corruptivity under.

Yeah, okay. Sorry if anybody got the impression that this system was mystically going to somehow decrease development corruption even though it gives no instructions for how to do so.

Originally Posted by Gambet

One can argue this back and forth for hours. It's best if we don't.

But arguing everything else back and forth is fine? Quite the painfully obvious retreat.

Originally Posted by Gambet

I'm not supporting your system nor the current system, because there is no current system that every server uses. Each server has its own ways of controlling things.

Every server uses an appointment system. In rare cases I've seen elections held where players could choose from a list of appointed candidates. As far as I know, the most important part of proposal 5 (a recall system) has never been implemented on any server.

Originally Posted by Gambet

Nice to know that you believe business managers shouldn't enforce any rules. Very interesting, indeed.

Nice to know that you think that when I say "playerworld administration," I mean "the entire playerworld."

Originally Posted by Gambet

Server managers still have to deal with the players when problems arise in which only they will be able to handle the situation.

I tried really hard to think of an example of such a situation. I couldn't do it.

Originally Posted by Gambet

Here we go again with your ego. This isn't about setting anyone up with the "pwn" or whatever you want to call it. As egotistical as your post was, you made an open challenge, and I've taken the liberty of accepting it by disproving your system from being as perfect as you claim it to be.

You're acting like I'm criticizing you for taking the challenge, which I'm not.

Originally Posted by Gambet

Once again, that doesn't make it right.

Which is what makes it a failure in the current system.

Originally Posted by Gambet

No, they are not the only way, they are just a very efficient way of doing so.

Not only did you miss my use of the word "administration", but now you've missed my use of the word "realistic".

Originally Posted by Gambet

That's because you can't come up with a way to remove developer corruption. All you ultimately need is rights to one wNPC and you have quite a lot of power if you have the proper scripting abilities.

If I thought I could come up with a good way of significantly reducing developer corruption, I would have waited until I came up with one before making this thread.

Originally Posted by Gambet

And that still doesn't make it right.

Which still makes it a flaw in the current system.

Originally Posted by Gambet

Not even close. You can't compare the amount of people that vote during elections "in real life" to the players that vote for elections on a server on Graal. What I mean by this is that "in real life", you most likely don't know over 60% of the voters, whereas with Graal voting on servers, since the playercount on each server is so low, you would most likely know over 60% of the voters, thus turning it to a huge popularity contest.

You can't compare politics to voting on a Graal server.

The dynamics are completely different, no doubt about that. But he seemed to be under the impression players would write the rules directly, which is false.

[-Ching]

this thread is a waste of space

[MKxTortoise]

Individual GPs wouldn't enforce the rules directly, but rather players would report infractions and the GP council would examine the evidence, both that produced by the player(s) and the logs (see proposal 4). Then they would vote on whether a rule infraction has occured and what the punishment should be (obviously they wouldn't all gather together in a room and vote. Voting would probably take place throughout the day, where one GP tells another about it, then that GP checks out the evidence and makes a vote, until a consensus is formed). Because of the increased work in enforcing the rules, it is probably best that punishments tend to be fairly harsh, and the council may even choose to make a rule against ridiculous accusations.

Yeah, do this one, it'd make it even harder for me to get jailed or banned.

Are you kidding me? Now all I have to do to add to my "ban evasion" counter is have "some people on the council." The fear of running into a GP who truly dislikes me is negated because all the other GPs are on my payroll.

[Alex-Stravier]

So uh, Houdini, where did you come up with this genius idea of an NPC that GPs can use to control jailing and whatnot?

[KuJi]

The BEST staff organization system ever is not giving anyone rights at all and make them send you the work that needed to be uploaded.. the best - non-corrupt no-staff tool way