Revision of the Playerworld Rules

[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.

[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

[Crono]

These are some things that I have to comment on, I pretty much agree with the rest.

Originally Posted by HoudiniMan

-Shut Down

I doubt you would be able to successfuly shut down a UC server. I just can't see unixmad approving of that...

Additionally, no inappropriate or copyrighted material should be uploaded.

Technically all the graphics players make are copyrighted, no? Also it should be "unapproved copyrighted material", what if someone gets permission to use a copyrighted image?

Do not use content that has been uploaded elsewhere on Graal without the consent of both the creator and the manager of the original world.

What about edits of the content?

All staff positions should be have an exclusive purpose. For example, you do not need someone to upload heads when the manager or graphics admin can do this.

I don't agree with this. I say let the managers run their servers their own way. Some methods will be more effective than others and don't think that it should be the PWA who decide this.

Only managers should have level 4 RCs. The manager should be active to perform tasks that can't be done without level 4 rights. A second level 4 RC can be given to the highest positioned admin, but only if needed (e.g.: timezone conflicts).

Refer to above comment.

No playerworld should have more than 3 level 4 RCs total. A third level 4 RC can be given to the Admin-Playerworld## or Admin-ClassicWorld account only.

Refer to above.

No playerworld should have more than 3 level 3 RCs. For any task requiring level 3 rights a staff can ask a level 3 or 4 RC to do it.

Refer to above.

Only managers are allowed to add RCs. The managers may also allow one other staff member to edit rights, if this person is trusted and their job role allows them such responsibility. E.g.: Assistant Manager

That's bull****. Refer to above.

Staff should never PM or Mass Message offensive material. They should also not have offensive material in their profile.

No offensive material in profiles? I understand the PM and Mass Message but PROFILES? Give me a break.

For example, FAQ and Events staff do not need RC as they are in-game positions only. Duties such as adding/fixing events are the NAT's and LAT's responsibility. Adding new FAQ/ET members, as well as any staff tools like "boots", should be done by the manager.

Refer to like 3 aboves.

Any RC in the "staff=" server-option should be an active staff member. Honorary RCs are forbidden.

Refer to above.

Guests who help with temporary problems or projects should not be left in the staff list, nor with any rights in their account as they are often used to attack a playerworld.

Refer to above. I was more of a "helper" on Valikorlia with a level 3.9 RC and in no occasion did I hax0r the playerworld, delete content, or do anything illegal. Not everyone is an idiot.

Invisible and closed off playerworlds do not need staff such as FAQs or GPs and should not have any until they are visible. When they are visible as "Hosted" they should only have these staff if the playercount warrants it.

Refer to above.

Only managers should have full rights RCs for security reasons.

Refer to above.

Do not give out rights if they are not needed... If a staff member doesn’t use a right for their job, they don’t need the right.

Refer to above.

All bans must be for a clear reason. You can not just ban someone because you dislike them.

Former PWA Malinko stated it is ok to ban someone on a UC server if they are "hindering development". This could be applied to any reason (Even a PM saying hi). Clarification?

Because bans are often done for incorrect or wrong reasons only people with level 3 or 4 RCs should be allowed to ban. This means that 5 people (MAX) should be able to ban.

Refer to way above.

If you link to your playerworlds website all content found within your website must fall within Graal's rules and there must be no offensive or illegal material. This includes links out of your website.

Lollin @ Era Forums

[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.

[Andy0687]

Originally Posted by CheeToS2

I'd say a live area is an area a normal player can access without the aid of an adminstrator.

So then we are no longer allowed to develop content in places players cant access on our world? Then release it at a later date? They must have access to it during development when its buggy and not ready for use?

It is a serious security issue to have lots of people with full rights. It's a rule in the IT world to never give anyone more rights than they need to complete their duties, and for good reason. If tons of people can do anything, it's only asking for trouble.

I agree and disagree at the same time, and only from experince. While in most cases if you have a bunch of people running around who can do whatever they want, youll eventually run into some problems. However from my time as Manager on a classic playerworld, I came to find out that even if people have all the rights on the server possible, with the proper direction, they will not clash with one another. Knowing their boundaries is what helps them develop, the rights are perks and could also come in handy later on.

The problem with your analogy is this is NOT the IT world, and the Staff members on a server do not recieve pay for their work. Things have to be a little different.

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.

Stefan doesn't charge for fixing problems

This is a partial double shot in my mind, the game already has a declining playerbase. Players enjoy playing in the game more then posting on the forums because its a much more relaxed enviroment. Its more likely that people would upgrade for the game instead of the forums (when that was an option).

You could have angry players yes because stefan can not get a quick backup, but instead of making tons of rules about it, simply make a clause in the playerworld registeration ->

"We are not responsible for your playerworld content and backups that you do not keep on your own and make no immediate effort to restore them if they are lost"

or something like that.

Also what I was saying about players mistakes making money, players will more likely give their money out to something that is a bit more relaxed, then having books and books of rules to follow. Some of them seem a bit overbearing and are only meant to control the way someone wants to run their server.

[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."

[CheeToS2]

Originally Posted by Andy0687

So then we are no longer allowed to develop content in places players cant access on our world? Then release it at a later date? They must have access to it during development when its buggy and not ready for use?

What? I think you misunderstood what Houdini wrote (he should probably edit it):

-Manager: Responsible for server content, and should limit uploading to "live" areas of the world.
-Managers should limit the amount of people who have ‘rw’ (read & write) rights to "live" folders, the folders current downloadable levels are in. Management should transfer files into "live" folders from non-live staff folders after checking them.

It doesn't say you can't develop in places players can't access. It is essentially saying you should do your development in a test environment (either an inaccessible level or a dev server), then have someone upload it to the live environment when it's ready by somebody in the administration. I can see how you might misread the first sentence though

I agree and disagree at the same time, and only from experince. While in most cases if you have a bunch of people running around who can do whatever they want, youll eventually run into some problems. However from my time as Manager on a classic playerworld, I came to find out that even if people have all the rights on the server possible, with the proper direction, they will not clash with one another. Knowing their boundaries is what helps them develop, the rights are perks and could also come in handy later on.

The problem with level 4 RCs is not that they will "clash" with each other, it is that giving many people such high access hugely increases the risk that somebody will decide to do something malicious. A level maker, for instance, does not need access to server options, and he/she shouldn't be able to remove the manager from power.

The problem with your analogy is this is NOT the IT world, and the Staff members on a server do not recieve pay for their work. Things have to be a little different.

Graal is very much so involved in the IT world. You have information (levels, npcs, logs, etc), the need to protect it, and the means to protect it. It must be confidential so people can't steal it for other servers, it must have integrity
(no malicious scripts), and it must have availability (no deleted content/dead npcservers). Nobody has any kind of IT title, but the work is definitely there. You are right, people don't receive pay, which is even less reason for them to behave.

This is a partial double shot in my mind, the game already has a declining playerbase. Players enjoy playing in the game more then posting on the forums because its a much more relaxed enviroment. Its more likely that people would upgrade for the game instead of the forums (when that was an option).

What's this have to do with what you quoted

You could have angry players yes because stefan can not get a quick backup, but instead of making tons of rules about it, simply make a clause in the playerworld registeration ->

"We are not responsible for your playerworld content and backups that you do not keep on your own and make no immediate effort to restore them if they are lost"

or something like that.

They aren't angry because nothing about it is in the terms of service, they are angry because they can't play since some rogue level 4 RC just removed all the staff and content.

Also what I was saying about players mistakes making money, players will more likely give their money out to something that is a bit more relaxed, then having books and books of rules to follow. Some of them seem a bit overbearing and are only meant to control the way someone wants to run their server.

I am kind of torn about this. People might not like having rules to follow, yes, but following them will lead to a better experience if the rules are written well.

[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.

[Andy0687]

Originally Posted by CheeToS2

What? I think you misunderstood what Houdini wrote (he should probably edit it):

Yes I did. Thats my mistake and after explination i understand what was meant now

The problem with level 4 RCs is not that they will "clash" with each other, it is that giving many people such high access hugely increases the risk that somebody will decide to do something malicious.

Fair enough, and I agree, but just because the chance is there does that mean all servers should instantly be limited?

Nobody has any kind of IT title, but the work is definitely there. You are right, people don't receive pay, which is even less reason for them to behave.

I was thinking of it as a hobby, people dont misbehave very often with their hobbys (assuming they are not already self-destructive to begin with). Making rules which seem overbearing is just going to cause the people who could have the higher rights to find some other way to do things.

For example in the "Live" world example Houdini made, just because your level is in overworld/testlevels/LATMan dosent mean LATMan cant make malicious scripts on his testlevels and in the end, disrupt gameplay anyways. Its a risk you have to take, so why make it seem like you are trying to control paying customers choices when one way or another, something could happen?

What's this have to do with what you quoted

Ah, I guess I didnt explain myself well enough, while Stefan dosent charge for fixing problems, if people see they will be entirely limited in what they develop and how they control it, they may seek to find another alternitive to develop their product. While people may make mistakes online with rights and such, graal is more likely to benefit in the long run from just letting things happen.

They aren't angry because nothing about it is in the terms of service, they are angry because they can't play since some rogue level 4 RC just removed all the staff and content.

I understand that but if they saw that now graal isnt taking responsibility or dosent need to be on the front as soon as something happens to restore their content, they may still be upset yes, but they will have something to look at and go "Oh, this is how long it might take".

No one here right now can say for sure exactily how long any kind of customer service might take, and that should be a priority over writing some new rules.

I am kind of torn about this. People might not like having rules to follow, yes, but following them will lead to a better experience if the rules are written well.

Thats true and I suppose thats why we are also discussing them. Its better that something is drafted that looks good, sounds good, and will work good, rather then just passing whatever and watching if it works.

Its just a matter of making sure that they are written so players dont say "Well, for 100 dollars a year I can have a ton of people try to control my content and what i do online, while i have to also upgrade accounts to get people to work on my server, or for 100 or so dollars forever, I could try to experiment with the Torque 2d engine"

[HoudiniMan]

Originally Posted by Andy0687

For example in the "Live" world example Houdini made, just because your level is in overworld/testlevels/LATMan dosent mean LATMan cant make malicious scripts on his testlevels and in the end, disrupt gameplay anyways. Its a risk you have to take, so why make it seem like you are trying to control paying customers choices when one way or another, something could happen?

Well, I'm sure my LATs would be irked, but if I ran a server their folders would not be listed in the folder config as having levels in them, and hence not be accessible even by warp. It would be a "turn in" folder only, until I moved it to a live (accessible) folder. However, there is nothing that requires an LAT to have their level online to test. Sure, they may employ simple scripts like doors and such, but the NATs can make those work and it solves the problem of standardizing "the best way to do a door" if the scripters are the ones doing it.

No one here right now can say for sure exactily how long any kind of customer service might take, and that should be a priority over writing some new rules.

We all do what is within our ability to do, man.

[Andy0687]

Originally Posted by HoudiniMan

Well, I'm sure my LATs would be irked, but if I ran a server their folders would not be listed in the folder config as having levels in them, and hence not be accessible even by warp. It would be a "turn in" folder only

That could work too, but if you step on enough staff members toes who is going to be left to work? Im just asking because some (very skilled) people would probably not do as much work if they were very restricted, that comes with the whole not being paid for what we do thing.

We all do what is within our ability to do, man.

Believe me I understand, that wasnt meant to be a shot at you or anything, I hope it didnt come off that way. I was just saying, with four globals on the staff team, not including Stefan and Unixmad, support is going to be at an all time slow. It would be nice to see that improved along with a set of rules, ya know?

[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.

[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 =|

[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.

[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.

[Darlene159]

Originally Posted by HoudiniMan

Well, do you think we should differentiate between classic/hosted/private rulebreakers? There are probably several cases this is appropriate, but which do you think are?

In my opinion, the rules should be the same for any PW that players have access to. Players do not deserve to be abused, or banned for no reason because of different rules.

[HoudiniMan]

Originally Posted by Darlene159

In my opinion, the rules should be the same for any PW that players have access to. Players do not deserve to be abused, or banned for no reason because of different rules.

The differences are much smaller. Obviously a player shouldn't be abused anywhere. But take bans for instance: On a classic server it would be inappropriate to ban somebody because they were bothering you. However, if you paid for a server to develop on, and you don't want to deal with some kid being a nuisance then why not give em the boot?

[Darlene159]

Originally Posted by HoudiniMan

However, if you paid for a server to develop on, and you don't want to deal with some kid being a nuisance then why not give em the boot?

If a person is annoying to the point of harrassment, then I can see it, but I have seen PW's at times ban someone because they don't like them, or because they get mad at someone, or stupid reasons like that...that is what I am saying.

[HoudiniMan]

Originally Posted by Darlene159

If a person is annoying to the point of harrassment, then I can see it, but I have seen PW's at times ban someone because they don't like them, or because they get mad at someone, or stupid reasons like that...that is what I am saying.

True, a lot of PW renters are immature about their space, but they paid for it. Isn't that their right if a player goes above and beyond to annoy them? Now, if they were representing Graal as either Classic or Hosted it would obviously require the staff to brush it off and be mature about it.

[Devil]

Originally Posted by Darlene159

If a person is annoying to the point of harrassment, then I can see it, but I have seen PW's at times ban someone because they don't like them, or because they get mad at someone, or stupid reasons like that...that is what I am saying.

They pay for the server, while under private listing, I'm sure they should be able to ban whoever they wish.

If said server ever makes it to classic, then there is a problem right there.

[Crono]

No one commented on my post.

[Darlene159]

Originally Posted by HoudiniMan

True, a lot of PW renters are immature about their space, but they paid for it. Isn't that their right if a player goes above and beyond to annoy them? Now, if they were representing Graal as either Classic or Hosted it would obviously require the staff to brush it off and be mature about it.

I wasn't talking about someone going above and beyond to annoy them. I was talking about just banning someone because you don't like them or something dumb, or abusing them with staff weapons.
Anyway, I got it

[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.