Revision of the Playerworld Rules

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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?

[PrinceDark]

PWA should cover the topic of remaking an entire server.

[Tyhm]

I agree. In the event of a conflict - the original owner wants it deleted, the levels staff want to keep it going (and even raise the funds to pay off the hosting bill), who should the PWA support? Is it the Owner's content to delete as they see fit? Is it the levels staff's to use despite the Owner's wishes? What if the levels staff split? What if two servers spontaneously arise, each using levels quite similar to a recently-sabotaged server? What if a levels admin starts his own server without the previous owner's permission?

Personally, I think ideally projects should be sorted by genre and compatible projects should be combined - if two people want to make medeval comical servers, there's one Monkey Island server, and if two people want to make space operas, there's one Star Wars server...

[zokemon]

I say everyone should just model after Maloria:
No one gets RC except for the Manager and graphics people (because they can't use this next solution).
All development positions (except for graphic artists) use in-game tools to create and "upload" their content.

No RCs for the win! It is a thing of the future!