Revision of the Playerworld Rules

[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.

[HoudiniMan]

Originally Posted by Mykel

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

No, they aren't. Maybe some managers run their servers that way, but it's a bad way to run a server. I haven't gotten any new rights in 2 years, it only means I can't do extra work, not that I'm under appreciated.

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

Which is why I qualified my statement with "If" as in "may or may not be" and "causing a problem". Each element vary important in the decision.

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by HoudiniMan

No, they aren't. Maybe some managers run their servers that way, but it's a bad way to run a server. I haven't gotten any new rights in 2 years, it only means I can't do extra work, not that I'm under appreciated.

Graal has existed and playerworlds have succeeded for many years without the imposition of such restrictions. As I stated previously, give the managers the benefit of the doubt. If a particular manager proves themself unable to effectively maintain security and checks/balances with respect to rights distribution, then it becomes your job to step in and do something about it. However, if a playerworld is running effectively and efficiently without these restrictions in place, then why step in and upset that unnecessarily? If it's not broken, why fix it?

Originally Posted by Devil

example

Apparently that playerworld needs to tighten security so things like this don't happen, and, if a "higher-up" member of staff is enabling this, then appropriate action should be taken.