Gift: Warpto System for Non-RCs

[zs0]

FAQs need warpto to warp to players for help.

And uh, warpto systems have been out FOREVER.

[Lance]

oh cool a warpto system

[Projectshifter]

Originally Posted by Trevor

FAQs (which I think is a horrible name) should answer questions and that is all. There is no reason for them to warp to a player to do that. For a person to be a FAQ they should have sufficient knowledge of a server, enough so to answer questions without warping to a player.

I imagine you are relating helping to quests and the like, so I'll give my input on that.
Quests are designed to be for the players to figure out on their own, not for a FAQ to walk them through it. What is the point in the time it took to make the quest if a FAQ helps a player through it?

Nah, most people know I'm not a fan of what I call "non-essential staff", but I will admit that once or twice I've seen things put to use. Whether or not it is 100% needed, I will say I've seen FAQ's put to good use if they apply themselves, and warping to players sometimes does help. It's easier to "show people what to do" than tell them, and this does not always relate to quests.

[-Ramirez-]

Originally Posted by Trevor

...stuff...

That's nice and all, but you're not the one running the servers. If that's how they want their staff to do their jobs, that's up to them.

[protagonist]

*shrug*

RC is used for communication purposes and such as well. Sure you can use PMs, but that is slow and bulky for trying to speak to multiple people. Especially with GPs, who may have to discuss bans or jails.
In my experience, it leads to a closer community among the staff. Nobody feels left out.

Theoretically, LATs don't need RC either. They can just send levels to administrators. It's really a preference issue; RC is a useful tool to keep your staff coordinating with eachother easily. More RCs can streamline your operation, provided they're legitimate staff positions and not overdone (nobody needs 10 FAQs).

[Projectshifter]

Originally Posted by protagonist

*shrug*

RC is used for communication purposes and such as well. Sure you can use PMs, but that is slow and bulky for trying to speak to multiple people. Especially with GPs, who may have to discuss bans or jails.
In my experience, it leads to a closer community among the staff. Nobody feels left out.

Theoretically, LATs don't need RC either. They can just send levels to administrators. It's really a preference issue; RC is a useful tool to keep your staff coordinating with eachother easily. More RCs can streamline your operation, provided they're legitimate staff positions and not overdone (nobody needs 10 FAQs).

Seems strange you're the only global that seems to feel this way... We've been over before how the number of RCs should be limited. With "discussing bans and stuff" there isn't much of a reason. And you CAN script /openban alternatives with comments and all. A stronger community between non-essential staff, and staff that actually work are, does what good really? Then you just have friends, one that has RC for a tool, and one that has RC to "bs" and goof around... I fail to see how that is useful. Nonetheless, you don't have to criticize everything. Sometimes you should just learn to say "thanks" or "okay" and move on. Whether or not you agree or disagree with this doesn't effect anything. Obviously some playerworlds will ignore it and continue what they're doing, and some will use it and be happy. I've already discussed with Spark about making this perhaps mandatory for non-essentials. GPs are debatable, but FAQs, and ETs don't really need them. If it comes down to mandatory use of such things (Spark and I agree on the abusiveness of /summon and how it is not really necessary), I will probably end up making an event NPC as well. Similar to GK's :tc I suppose.
-Projectshifter

[Reflux]

Yes, but providing players, for example for FAQs with rights such as warpto and update levels makes there job a lot easy and more efficient. This thoeretically gives them the ability to log on to RC. However if a FAQ Administrator or server manger states that no FAQ may use Remote Control, lest they be fired immediately where is the problem. This system has worked on the Classic server, FAQs have the rights wich they require to do the job, but are not allowed on RC, and not once yet have I seen a FAQ go on RC. This way FAQs can have the tools required to perform their job, and the playerlist isn't cluttered up with people pointlessly idling on RC.

[-Ramirez-]

Originally Posted by Reflux

This thoerretically gives them the ability to log on to RC.

Theoretically? Try removing that word and the sentence is correct.

...and yes, RC firing has been a good deterrent, but seems... unnecessary. I don't think it was really necessary for Stefan to make it so your IP has to match for you to be able to use the "update level" and "warpto" commands. It just caused this stupid RC problem some servers now have.

[Lance]

Originally Posted by -Ramirez-

...and yes, RC firing has been a good deterrent, but seems... unnecessary. I don't think it was really necessary for Stefan to make it so your IP has to match for you to be able to use the "update level" and "warpto" commands. It just caused this stupid RC problem some servers now have.

Or, perhaps people could not give others RC access unless they intend to give them RC access.

You know, either way.

[protagonist]

Originally Posted by Projectshifter

Seems strange you're the only global that seems to feel this way...

Just because other people feel different doesn't mean I should change how I think.

Originally Posted by Projectshifter

We've been over before how the number of RCs should be limited.

To that which is necessary, yes. However, there is a difference between having a bare minimum and having an efficient server. I find that GPs do their jobs better with the ability to add comments (also a function of RC) as well. Sure you can add comments with a script, but how efficient is that? How are you going to keep track of people? It's much easier to be able to make comments with some sort of format.

Originally Posted by Projectshifter

With "discussing bans and stuff" there isn't much of a reason. And you CAN script /openban alternatives with comments and all. A stronger community between non-essential staff, and staff that actually work are, does what good really?

Let's see.
There are no feelings of inferiority. I wouldn't want my staff feeling left out because of them lacking an RC.
As I said before, scripting is inefficient for comments. How are you supposed to follow the commonly used (and easily readible)
Date:
Time:
Reason:
format if your comments are in a string? It just seems to create needless work for scripters to make such a system, there are better things to do.

Originally Posted by Projectshifter

Then you just have friends, one that has RC for a tool, and one that has RC to "bs" and goof around... I fail to see how that is useful.

Those friends will just be given RCs as "LATs" or "NATs" or other such things, regardless of whether they do work or not. Friends tend to get higher positions than these anyway.

Originally Posted by Projectshifter

Nonetheless, you don't have to criticize everything. Sometimes you should just learn to say "thanks" or "okay" and move on. Whether or not you agree or disagree with this doesn't effect anything.

I'm a PWA. It's my duty to comment on these things. Especially if what you say in the next bit is true.

Originally Posted by Projectshifter

Obviously some playerworlds will ignore it and continue what they're doing, and some will use it and be happy. I've already discussed with Spark about making this perhaps mandatory for non-essentials. GPs are debatable, but FAQs, and ETs don't really need them. If it comes down to mandatory use of such things (Spark and I agree on the abusiveness of /summon and how it is not really necessary), I will probably end up making an event NPC as well. Similar to GK's :tc I suppose.
-Projectshifter

Telling the playerworlds that they have to use these NPCs isn't going to make them happy. Telling them they can't let their staff have RC is also a bad idea. I have no trouble reading the Server Options provided they list their staff in (Manager) (Co-Manager) (Admin) so the whole reading issue isn't so bad. It's not going to cut down on friend RCs either, the managers/admins who hire their friends will just make them NATs or somesuch to get around it.
The RCs you are targetting -GPs, FAQs, and ETs- are not security threats. So the security issue doesn't apply so much here. The idea of RC restrictions is to minimize the amount of damage done to a playerworld if it gets attacked, not to try and impede server managers.

Post script: As an afterthought, please do not tell playerworlds they can't have GPs/ETs/FAQs with RC. Somebody came to me and accused you of such.

[-Ramirez-]

Originally Posted by Lance

Or, perhaps people could not give others RC access unless they intend to give them RC access.

...? No RC access == no "update level" or "warpto" ability without a script. So I don't know what you're talking about.

[matt8891]

Originally Posted by -Ramirez-

...? No RC access == no "update level" or "warpto" ability without a script. So I don't know what you're talking about.

Why would ET's needs update level anyway??

[Lance]

Originally Posted by -Ramirez-

...? No RC access == no "update level" or "warpto" ability without a script. So I don't know what you're talking about.

My point hath been underlined. The important part hath been bolded.

[protagonist]

Originally Posted by matt8891

Why would ET's needs update level anyway??

For updating levels?
Sometimes events get stuck.

[-Ramirez-]

Originally Posted by matt8891

Why would ET's needs update level anyway??

Convenience. Go talk to GCs on Classic, you'll soon learn the use of the command.

Originally Posted by Lance

My point hath been underlined. The important part hath been bolded.

I assumed you didn't mean that, as that has already been made clear. However, you're forgetting that Classic doesn't HAVE an NPC Server yet, thus the problem exists there, and cannot be solved.