New Manager

[xnervNATx]

Originally Posted by TSAdmin

I could have walked around on Classic with the 2 or 3 people that were on each day over the past couple of weeks until my virtual feet bled, but no amount of walking around on the server was going to get my review input to be swayed by something like
"This tile looks like it's been inactive for 4 years

i only saw you log on classic 3 times in the past month and there was about 18 players online every day

[StrykerTFFD]

Originally Posted by DutchGuy

So the admins were aware of his situation, but you can't say that this moving takes 4 years?, it seems master storm has a suitable explanation to everything that heads his way. Problem is, other admins are aware of what he's doing yet they let it slip by.

I knew about it. I openly supported Storm in the private review thread. We need to make that thread public, show just what I'm talking about.

[TSAdmin]

Originally Posted by xnervNATx

i only saw you log on classic 3 times in the past month and there was about 18 players online every day

On the same token, I could argue I only ever saw you on 3 times as well. I know you're an active player, but it doesn't change the fact that you and I could only have seen each other as often as our times allowed us to. Just because you don't see something happening (In this case, someone such as myself getting on) doesn't mean it's not happening at all.

Originally Posted by Kill

I meant your team didn't ask every staff for their views on the matter - especially the ones with the highest administrative privileges (such as Stryker and Ranger), they also didn't look at other Classic forums such as the GC forums since looking at private forums only show a positive light on development and never the reality of things (for example the awful HD which could've been shown to you in a good light when in fact it was anything but).

All of the highest admins (Including Stryker and Ranger) were given access to a private forum created by Darlene by request of Bell in which there was a thread that held discussions between the PWA and staff. This forum was actually the idea of one of the staff, as it were.

Originally Posted by Kill

I can't talk for everyone else but I personally did reply to questions that were asked, and I did compare with other candidates and gave a justified reason as to why I believed this person would've been better than another person. If they gave deflective answers; you should've done your part and said that so they could answer the question you were trying to imply to avoid them changing the direction of their answer.

I am going to single out that part there in bold. I was actually speaking with DC about this through PMs. I would post the history here if it weren't against the rules, but the basic point was that I had tried, but whether the people asked at the time didn't want to answer, or didn't have an answer, or just plain didn't want to talk to me, I never got one from them, but they're more than willing to stand up and claim they were never heard out, now, when the review is over.

[StrykerTFFD]

Originally Posted by TSAdmin

All of the highest admins (Including Stryker and Ranger) were given access to a private forum created by Darlene by request of Bell in which there was a thread that held discussions between the PWA and staff. This forum was actually the idea of one of the staff, as it were.

Wow, quit lying. I've called out the other PWAs on their lies, I will call you out on yours. I said before that thread had one post from a PWA who was involved in the review. The rest came from Bell who kept trying to get the ball rolling. There was no discussion. There was a one sided attempt from the staff to get you to give us an idea what your thoughts were.

Even Bell admitted in this very thread that our posts left questions to be answered, yet we didn't hear from any of you except her. I really wish they would make that thread public so you guys can stop trying to use it to say you did talk to us. You didn't.

Further to the point, if the PWA felt they had spoken to me adequately, why did Tig try to apologize to me for not doing just that? (I don't expect an answer to this question. Every question I've posted in this thread that puts you on the spot has gone ignored.)

[Shadow87]

Well ill say first off, Ranger, highest power? I think not.
Secondly, It became clear to me , that PWA is basically just as corrupt as anyone else who is on graal. If this wasnt true, we wouldnt still be seeing storm on a manager tag , nor would we have seen thor given one. See classic sucks so much we now need 2 managers to attempt at saving it (never gonna happen)
I feel no ones views or opinions were even considered by the PWA, i know mine werent expressed.

And come on, TS, get real, you don't play classic enough, none of the PWAs do, especially not enough to be able to judge who our manager should have been, clearly a mistake was made, and im willing to bet we'll see that in a few months time, when nothing good has come from classic still. I mean, if our big plan is two remade graals and a cool fun newspaper! then i have no hope anylonger.

[xnervNATx]

Originally Posted by TSAdmin

On the same token, I could argue I only ever saw you on 3 times as well. I know you're an active player, but it doesn't change the fact that you and I could only have seen each other as often as our times allowed us to. Just because you don't see something happening (In this case, someone such as myself getting on) doesn't mean it's not happening at all.

i was on most of the time , ask anyone on the server. i saw you come online twice on your own an the third time is when dc pm you about bell ****ing the review on her own.

[TSAdmin]

Originally Posted by StrykerTFFD

Even Bell admitted in this very thread that our posts left questions to be answered, yet we didn't hear from any of you except her. I really wish they would make that thread public so you guys can stop trying to use it to say you did talk to us. You didn't.

I don't have a problem with the thread becoming public if that's what you so wished, of course that's not up to me to decide, though and the thread/forum was set up to be allowed the right to bypass the rules, which may not sit well with Darlene in the public. Most of that thread turned into more of a projects and ideas thing after someone had pointed out the real issue: Trust within the team.

Originally Posted by StrykerTFFD

Further to the point, if the PWA felt they had spoken to me adequately, why did Tig try to apologize to me for not doing just that? (I don't expect an answer to this question. Every question I've posted in this thread that puts you on the spot has gone ignored.)

I guess we'd have to leave that up to Tig to answer for himself, anyway. I would instantly assume the reason he did apologise for not adequately questioning you was simple to answer: Because he knows he didn't... or he was just trying to get you off his back by agreeing with you. Either/or. But you'd have to hear that from him, since I haven't asked him this specifically, myself.

Originally Posted by Shadow87

And come on, TS, get real, you don't play classic enough, none of the PWAs do, especially not enough to be able to judge who our manager should have been, clearly a mistake was made, and im willing to bet we'll see that in a few months time, when nothing good has come from classic still. I mean, if our big plan is two remade graals and a cool fun newspaper! then i have no hope anylonger.

Again, if I could post history of discussions, I would. My suggestion to Bell right from the beginning (I am talking even before the first review when it was just Bell simply asking "What am I gonna do about Classic, TSA? ") went a little something like this:

Fire everyone, have Skyld make it completely NPC-Based, maybe 1 or 2 GP's just for the human interaction and basic moderation of the playerworld since barely anyone bothers to get banned on Classic, etc etc etc,

Obviously a joke at the time, you can imagine, but when it did come to the review, my serious suggestion was (word for word):

Originally Posted by TSAdmin

Okay, well I have to get going to bed and all that, so I thought I'd throw something out here. I was thinking out loud to Bell when she said something that triggered a thought.

"Let them choose the proverbial pig**** they're happy to roll around in"

They know better than us, and they've made that pretty clear. Throw it to a vote/opinion poll type thing. We choose the candidates, they throw it around amongst themselves, they have a bit of control about the outcome. If it goes pear shaped, they have no one but themselves to blame.

---------------

Originally Posted by xnervNATx

i was on most of the time , ask anyone on the server. i saw you come online twice on your own an the third time is when dc pm you about bell ****ing the review on her own.

And how much of an inconvenient time was it for you when I DID log on? It was usually around midday for me when getting on, while for you, you were probably just getting ready for bed within the following 10 minutes. If you would like me to pull a history of my RC/Client-RC logins, I'll send them your way. I didn't always get on Client RC when I did log in, but 90 percent of the times that I log on anywhere, the first button I press is F6.

[xnervNATx]

what do f6 do can you tell me

[TSAdmin]

Originally Posted by xnervNATx

what do f6 do can you tell me

Logs into Client RC.

[StrykerTFFD]

I'd like to note that TS in no way defended the fact I said there was no discussion in that thread, did not respond to the first part of my post. I guess it's easier to ignore the truth than admit to it.

[TSAdmin]

Originally Posted by StrykerTFFD

I'd like to note that TS in no way defended the fact I said there was no discussion in that thread, did not respond to the first part of my post. I guess it's easier to ignore the truth than admit to it.

I never defended it for the same reason I didn't post in it: It wasn't a discussion, it was exactly what I responded to your section paragraph about (thus meaning that I did actually in someway respond to your first as well as second). It's "easier" to call it a discussion since that's what it was set up for, and named, than it is to say "The thread that went nowhere"

[StrykerTFFD]

Originally Posted by TSAdmin

All of the highest admins (Including Stryker and Ranger) were given access to a private forum created by Darlene by request of Bell in which there was a thread that held discussions between the PWA and staff. This forum was actually the idea of one of the staff, as it were.

Originally Posted by TSAdmin

I never defended it for the same reason I didn't post in it: It wasn't a discussion, it was exactly what I responded to your section paragraph about (thus meaning that I did actually in someway respond to your first as well as second). It's "easier" to call it a discussion since that's what it was set up for, and named, than it is to say "The thread that went nowhere"

Took you less than three posts to make yourself look like a fool.

[TSAdmin]

Originally Posted by StrykerTFFD

Took you less than three posts to make yourself look like a fool.

And I can take less than half a post to point out where you've screwed up your response: You should read the final sentence in the second quote in your post before this one.

[StrykerTFFD]

You can call it the thread that went nowhere but then also admit you didn't post in it. Yes, blame the staff not the PWA that didn't actually take part in the discussion. Cute.

[TSAdmin]

Originally Posted by StrykerTFFD

You can call it the thread that went nowhere but then also admit you didn't post in it. Yes, blame the staff not the PWA that didn't actually take part in the discussion. Cute.

hmm, I don't remember saying that it was all the staff's fault. There's no doubt in my mind that the thread failed in a joint effort, but to be fair, a lot of you had opted for Forum PMing us within seconds or minutes of posting something to either "justify what it meant" or to "elaborate privately". It's hard to support the idea of this thread's aim to be a "discussion" when most of the "discussions" took place on a one-on-one basis in PMs.