Revision of the Playerworld Rules

[Devil]

SO you complain about that now, when that's not the problem we are supposed to be having a discussion about?

[HoudiniMan]

While I do agree the management of the server should decide the majority of staffing policies, with guidelines, I can't see a situation where you would need more than 2 level 4 admins and more than 3 level 3 admins.

[Devil]

Chat loggers shouldn't be made to log EVERY single little thing a player says, that is invading privacy.

[HoudiniMan]

I really don't see a problem with a chat logger, because it is game chat which any player can see, or walk-in on.

A PM logger, which isn't currently possible, would be crossing the line; but, if there was a suspected trainer user online it would not be overly heinous to send their chat to RC, although it shouldn't be kept unless they did something bad.

[Tom]

The part where it says any files uploaded to the file manager belongs to graal online, apparrently the rule that the dudes made up cant really be enforced >.>

[Elk]

Originally Posted by Tom

The part where it says any files uploaded to the file manager belongs to graal online, apparrently the rule that the dudes made up cant really be enforced >.>

Agreed

[HoudiniMan]

That rule is covered in the user agreement I believe, it's not really up for debate. Nobody has any other comments?

[Magadal]

I got a question to this "Only RC for the people who need it." thingy. Can we also give RC to the people who dont need it for a period of time? So they can motivate some of the Devs to work more or something like that. Trust me, that worked before, and will work again :o

[HoudiniMan]

Originally Posted by Magadal

I got a question to this "Only RC for the people who need it." thingy. Can we also give RC to the people who dont need it for a period of time? So they can motivate some of the Devs to work more or something like that. Trust me, that worked before, and will work again :o

That should be the manager or dev chief's job.

[Rufus]

Is it imperative that all servers must use the same staff system and hierarchy?

[Tyhm]

Before I rip into this - good job on the rules (for the most part), particularly Reviving a Playerworld Project and the catchall disclaimer.

But-

1) Limiting the Level4 RCs, etcetera - this falls under Advice. It's a good idea to limit the number of people that could sabotage your world; the PWA reserves the right to refuse to fix things if you're dumb, but I don't think the PWA's got the time or energy to go around deleting servers in anticipation of that stupidity.
2) Maybe say not "All your files are belong to us", but rather "We will protect the copyright/intellectual property rights for your files as long as your server is hosted. If for whatever reason your server is no longer using said files, they become fair use for whatever other Graal server chooses to use them." Something like that, put a positive spin on saying the same thing.
3) Live Updates - it's gonna happen, and it's just fuzzy enough to cause problems. I'd suggest "If you update a level with players in it, you are responsible for solving any conflicts arising from that - pulling players out of walls, etc. - before logging off." Which is not to say the players that logged off there are any safer...
4) Nitpicking: "And if they are not followed some corrective actions include:"

Really, my only big gripes with it are that the same issues I have had, I still have - "It's my playerworld, I paid for it, I do what I want" vs "I paid $100 to GIVE Unixmad a server?". But perhaps that's beyond the pale.

[Skyld]

Originally Posted by Tyhm

2) Maybe say not "All your files are belong to us", but rather "We will protect the copyright/intellectual property rights for your files as long as your server is hosted. If for whatever reason your server is no longer using said files, they become fair use for whatever other Graal server chooses to use them." Something like that, put a positive spin on saying the same thing.

I disagree here. It is better to ensure that users recognise that the ownership of levels, scripts, etc uploaded to GraalOnline servers will be transferred to Cyberjoueurs, otherwise people could say "I don't want to be involved anymore", remove their files from popular servers and then Cyberjoueurs have to suffer because of it. At least this way, Cyberjoueurs have a case against people who cause damage to their property like that.

[Tyhm]

Originally Posted by CheeToS2

Many servers also don't keep their own backups and rely on Stefan to provide them when needed. Stefan's pretty busy and it can take days to restore a server sometimes, which results in a lot of lost productivity and angry players.

Servers should have the ability to keep - and restore - their own backups. There should be a .gpack filetype, even if it's just a customized Zip file, that stores all a server's weapons, serverconfig, graphics, ganis, etc. - and playerdata for preference - then you should be able to push a button on RC to backup to GPack, restore from GPack, create update file for GPack (just the changes from last backup to make for faster backups - update files can be daily, with monthly or weekly Main Backups), an option to schedule it so the admin can just turn on RC and it'll automatically backup his server on his harddrive...ideally the GPack filetype would be resistant to transferring (maybe a backup GPack has a password equal to/based on the servername, so it's absolutely useless on a server with a different name...but there should be a GPack option for "share these files", when you want to send your little nephew your movement script, level/graphics/ganis and all.) Then Graal could start people out with better than an utterly blank server - you register a server and Poof, here's a handfull of Server Template GPacks to play with - restore the ZeldaClone GPack to have an approximation of Classic, restore the MegaMan GPack to have an approximation of that...

Originally Posted by Skyld

I disagree here. It is better to ensure that users recognise that the ownership of levels, scripts, etc uploaded to GraalOnline servers will be transferred to Cyberjoueurs, otherwise people could say "I don't want to be involved anymore", remove their files from popular servers and then Cyberjoueurs have to suffer because of it. At least this way, Cyberjoueurs have a case against people who cause damage to their property like that.

I agree totally, but in more flowery language - and with a different target. Graal should be able to ressurect a server's levels, scripts, etc, just not by the hand of Unixmad. If I made a crappy server, deleted it, then Unixmad brought it back and started marketing it, I'd be upset - and I'm one of the guys that LIKES the corporate masters. But if I made a crappy server with Com013, I deleted it, HE resurrected it and started marketing it...well, hell, it was half his server anyway, good for him. I might rail against Unixmad anyway for letting it happen, and he can point to the part saying "I never said I'd stop anyone from resurrecting it." And that's my point, Graal needs to say "I won't stop someone from using your discarded server (backup)" and not "I will use your stuff, like it or not."

[Tyhm]

Originally Posted by Tyhm

Graal should be able to ressurect a server's levels, scripts, etc, just not by the hand of Unixmad. If I made a crappy server, deleted it, then Unixmad brought it back and started marketing it, I'd be upset - and I'm one of the guys that LIKES the corporate masters. But if I made a crappy server with Com013, I deleted it, HE resurrected it and started marketing it...well, hell, it was half his server anyway, good for him. I might rail against Unixmad anyway for letting it happen, and he can point to the part saying "I never said I'd stop anyone from resurrecting it." And that's my point, Graal needs to say "I won't stop someone from using your discarded server (backup)" and not "I will use your stuff, like it or not."

Weird, but it seems like this Long Buried Comment is quite applicable in view of Zodiac's recent loss. Since this is neither a discussion of any recent admin actions nor an opportunity to bash the admins for what they have or haven't done, perhaps we can discuss what the PWA should ideally be empowered to do when a server owner goes rogue?

[Devil]

I think you should end the conversation about the uploading your work and Graal owning it topic.

It's never going to change, so don't waste your time.

[HoudiniMan]

The "live" thing needs to be re-written apparently, but it was trying to imply this:

LATMan gets a folder /levels/staff/LATMan that he can access and upload work to, and LATAdminMan or ManagerMan can move completed levels to /levels/overworld/lollerbar/

This way the entire LAT team doesn't need to have rw rights to /overworld/* which could result in planted scripts, deletions, etc. and just isn't necessary to work.

I suppose I chose "live" meaning if the level were deleted it would disrupt gameplay, such as if LATMan blows a gasket and quits, deletes everything he can (his folder), and logs off... the playable server is still fine.

As for the rights, I have yet to see anybody make a solid argument why they would need more than 2 level 4 RCs and 3 level 3 RCs if everybody is doing their jobs.

[Devil]

Originally Posted by HoudiniMan

As for the rights, I have yet to see anybody make a solid argument why they would need more than 2 level 4 RCs and 3 level 3 RCs if everybody is doing their jobs.

For the simple fact it's not needed.

[Devil]

That's being worked on :P

[Andy0687]

Originally Posted by Devil

That's being worked on :P

You act as though you are officially speaking for Unixmad and his company. Also you didnt really include anything else but a one liner so no one will know what you were talking about.

[Devil]

OH yes, you can actually gather I talk on behalf of them.

I'm just saying myself and Houdini were talking about this last night and were trying to work on something to put forth to the directors to get them on the damn ball.

[Andy0687]

Originally Posted by Devil

OH yes, you can actually gather I talk on behalf of them.

I said thats what it seemed like, you used to do it before even though you were only "unofficially" ""helping""

I'm just saying myself and Houdini were talking about this last night and were trying to work on something to put forth to the directors to get them on the damn ball.

Thats all you needed was a small explination,
I think some other people are also qualified to help come up with ideas and stuff. I am just suggesting they try new things with new people, thats all.

[excaliber7388]

Originally Posted by HoudiniMan

More like... remake.

I'm not even going to link to the old ones because they were last updated in 2003, and a lot of the rules need adjusting to even fit in today.

So, I would like everybody's opinion on what rules need to be officialized, revised, etc.

Also, and this is something very touchy and will need to be discussed with the directors, is what happens if a playerworld breaks the rules?

I am also establishing a more concrete requirement for the hosted tab inspections. So far my outline is revolving around two main things:

1) An area, however small (i.e. only 1 town is okay) that is 100% completed. This area should function as a preview/teaser for the world that is under construction, and should be representative of the final product in all it's larger glory. This way players get a taste for the style, and gameplay of a server.

2) It should draw the players interest. There should be enough activity to keep a players interest without the intervention of a tour guide or an events staff team. The server itself should have interesting enough aspects to hold interest for some time byitself, we recommend at least 1 hour.

Public input rocks.

I knew about these for a long time =|

[Devil]

I don't disagree with you at all Andy.

Lack of commucation with all parties on this subject is a major problem, and destructive within itself.

[Crono]

No one commented on my post.

[HoudiniMan]

So far we haven't really made any headway people...

[Brandon]

Personally I don't see the need for limiting certain access levels or editing of rights to a certain person or a certain number of people. As long as a reasonable level of account security is maintained, there's no reason to impose such limits. Whether or not something can feasibly be accomplished with this number of RCs or that number of RCs is irrelevant; in the end, it's up to the people in charge of the playerworld to deal with staffing issues, etc.

I realize that the intention of these limits is to eliminate some of the power abuse issues/removal of levels due to uncontentedness with whatever/destruction of playerworlds/etc, however, being selective about who is hired and carefully picking and choosing who gets access to what will accomplish that just as effectively, and, in the end, if someone is ill-placed in a particular position or abuses rights that they weren't trustworthy enough to receive in the first place, that too falls back to the playerworld management and a seriously needed adjustment in the hiring/consideration process.

*** EDIT: This is not to say that I condone 50 level 4 RCs or everyone on the playerworld having the ability to reset attributes or anything of the sort, I just think that, within reason, staffing issues should be decided by the people in charge of the staff.

[Tyhm]

- but if they don't follow HoudiniMan's recommendations (and they DO give everyone reset powers), they're on their own and he's under no obligation to help them.

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by Tyhm

- but if they don't follow HoudiniMan's recommendations (and they DO give everyone reset powers), they're on their own and he's under no obligation to help them.

I had thought to add this, but wasn't sure whether or not I was going to. In any event, I agree.

[Crono]

Originally Posted by Tyhm

- but if they don't follow HoudiniMan's recommendations (and they DO give everyone reset powers), they're on their own and he's under no obligation to help them.

That's just dumb :/

It's like me saying "ok kids its recommended to wear safety glasses here but if you get chemicals in your eyes IM NOT HELPING U NOOB LOL OWNED!!"

[HoudiniMan]

Originally Posted by Gerami

That's just dumb :/

It's like me saying "ok kids its recommended to wear safety glasses here but if you get chemicals in your eyes IM NOT HELPING U NOOB LOL OWNED!!"

More like saying "Don't touch the chemicals" and they proceed to play with and spill the chemicals all over the floor. Then they come running to me and tell me I have to pick up the toxic shards and give them MORE checmicals to play with.

[Crono]

Originally Posted by HoudiniMan

More like saying "Don't touch the chemicals" and they proceed to play with and spill the chemicals all over the floor. Then they come running to me and tell me I have to pick up the toxic shards and give them MORE checmicals to play with.

No my example is better. D:!

[Inverness]

Myself and many others i'm sure consider that statement about the limit of L4RC advice only.

In my opinion if the Owner wants to be retarded and give L4RCs to untrustworthy people then its his/her problem.

[HoudiniMan]

Originally Posted by Inverness

Myself and many others i'm sure consider that statement about the limit of L4RC advice only.

In my opinion if the Owner wants to be retarded and give L4RCs to untrustworthy people then its his/her problem.

I intend to distinguish here for classic/hosted servers and private worlds. I fully believe that Classic servers won't be hampered by the limit and should hold themselves to higher standards of management.

Private worlds, I believe, should be able to hand out level 4s like candy if that works for them - but Classic worlds can work just fine with the limit unless there is an problem with inactive admins. However, that clearly illustrates staffing problems causing woe, not level of rights.

I hope that the added pressure caused by not having a convenient replacement for inactive admins will keep admins dedicated, and when they are not performing well enough, will cause them to be replaced by somebody who can/will.

So far nobody has demonstrated how this would cause a server to be hampered in operation. If somebody has a valid reason a classic server couldn't run well with the limit in place, we can certainly discuss changing the limit.

[HoudiniMan]

Secondarily, if anybody has wording suggestions to make any rule less wordy, while still conveying the idea clearly, please post them!

[Mykel]

Originally Posted by HoudiniMan

I intend to distinguish here for classic/hosted servers and private worlds. I fully believe that Classic servers won't be hampered by the limit and should hold themselves to higher standards of management...


...So far nobody has demonstrated how this would cause a server to be hampered in operation. If somebody has a valid reason a classic server couldn't run well with the limit in place, we can certainly discuss changing the limit.

The thing is, there are always exceptions. I've worked on servers where there are have been quite a few dedicated, trustworth staff who have worked on the server in upwards of 2+ years. Why should they be denied promotion and increase in responsibility just because of a silly rule?

Would it hamper operation? Probably nothing major. But, remember, not everyone is on graal 24/7. Just because a manager is only actively on RC around (let's say...) 15-20 hours a week doesn't mean they deserve a demotion. That leaves 148-153 hours in a week in which someone could possibly need something from that person. I'm not sure what the limit is, but by limiting the number of high-level RCs, you are limiting the chances and percetages that a person that is needed will be on.

Can someone just wait? Absolutely. However, is this "hampering operation"? Yes, it is.

Obviously, there is a very fine line when it comes to this, and no matter what you say or do, there are going to be servers who mess up and give someone irresponsible high-level RC rights. However, these mess-ups are very commonly easily fixed, and they are your job to do so. Not to mention, even when you limit high-level RCs, they can still be given to irresponsible people. You aren't completely preventing anything, just lowering percentages.

Precautions are good, but over-doing it for reasons that aren't 100% necessary can be just as negative as the negative things the precautions try to prevent.

[HoudiniMan]

Originally Posted by Mykel

The thing is, there are staff who have worked on the server in upwards of 2+ years. Why should they be denied promotion and increase in responsibility just because of a silly rule?

Because rights are not a reward for service, they are a tool to accomplish a job. They would not need those rights unless the other people with those rights aren't doing their jobs. Even then, the need is created because of the inactive admin, and not a lack of high level RCs.

a manager is only actively on RC around (let's say...) 15-20 hours a week doesn't mean they deserve a demotion.

If it's causing a problem, then maybe the manager does. If it's a temporary thing, like finals week, then the assistant manager can handle it.

Can someone just wait? Absolutely. However, is this "hampering operation"? Yes, it is.

A few hours wait is fine, and the staff member could leave the manager a note in comments. Also, the assistant manager may come around before the manager is back.

The limit isn't so much about being cautious, but because they aren't needed. If they are frequently the cause of abuse, attacks, etc - and not needed - why allow them? That's a few good reasons to limit them and nobody has provided a reason you would need more than 2 level 4 RCs on a classic world.

[Mykel]

Originally Posted by HoudiniMan

Because rights are not a reward for service, they are a tool to accomplish a job. They would not need those rights unless the other people with those rights aren't doing their jobs. Even then, the need is created because of the inactive admin, and not a lack of high level RCs.

But rewards are a reward for service. We can all pretend that they aren't but as with any sort of service, they are.

If it's causing a problem, then maybe the manager does. If it's a temporary thing, like finals week, then the assistant manager can handle it.

15-20 hours as a temporary thing? That's 2-3 hours a day. Seems pretty legit and pretty active to me.

A few hours wait is fine, and the staff member could leave the manager a note in comments. Also, the assistant manager may come around before the manager is back.

Yes, as I said, it's definitely fine. But, it is hampering operation, which is what you asked. Is it hampering operation in a way that is somewhat small? Yeah, but it's still hampering.

The limit isn't so much about being cautious, but because they aren't needed. If they are frequently the cause of abuse, attacks, etc - and not needed - why allow them? That's a few good reasons to limit them and nobody has provided a reason you would need more than 2 level 4 RCs on a classic world.

I've provided them. Waiting. 2 level 4s? Let's even say that you have two extremely active people who are on 30-35 hours a week (4-5 hours every day)...even if they were never on at the same time, that would leave almost 2/3 of the week in which a level 4 RC wasn't present.

[Devil]

I have a good example today.

A Nat "aquired" a level 4 rc by using someones else's account, and gave himself heaps of rights, then fired me. Yay go Endora.

[Inverness]

Thats kind of silly that some person could use another's acct to give themselves rights, all RCs should be locked to IP or Computer ID. I suggest Computer ID for L4s.

On Aeon there are 9 people with L4 RC including myself, all of which have been with the server far over a year.
2 Owners, 2 Managers, 3 Server Admins, 1 Lead Developer and myself the NPC Admin.

[_Z3phyr_]

I believe these rules should include the phrase "Don't be stupid" in its overall summary. It would be a loose reference to the Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy (which I'm sure we all can agree was a great movie).


just me though <3


edit btw I know it was a book too thank you very much you don't have to remind me mr smarty pants