It's almost been a week since the fan ate some rather unflattering food, and the dust seems to have settled and everyone has had a chance to collect themselves and return their actions to their heads instead of their hearts.
I'd like to use this time to discuss our community in general since there is little worry now about freshly emotional events clouding our judgement.
Like most of you, I've been a member of this community for the past few months and I've not been blind or deaf to many of the complaints that have been voiced either here on the forum, ingame, or on Teamspeak. While before there was very little I could do about most complaints except for repeat them to others, I now find myself in a position where I can address them first-hand and work to hopefully resolve the root causes of the complaints.
In the past, there were complaints voiced by our community's members regarding administrative actions such as password resets, callsign unlinking, squad leadership changes, etc.
Other more vocal complaints also involved the administration where people accused them of behaving like the WWII era Gestapo - unilaterally using their administrative privileges to ban, delete, silence, or otherwise "oppress" the community at large without the will of the community backing them.
More complaints still were voiced about the punishments received by players who broke our Rules of Conduct. The application of bantimes seemed inconsistant where the punishments didn't necessarily fit the level of the crimes.
In short - mistakes were made by many people on both sides of the coin, and each side did not hesitate to point out the flaws of the other. The good thing, though, is that we've all taken notice of this and more importantly I've already started to take action that I believe will begin to resolve this.
In the present, I have used my first week as the head administrator to start to address the complaints I have heard over the past few months. I've taken the initial steps of re-assigning the often-ignored Senator-at-Large seat to a more active member of the community. My hope is to give more power to the community at large, removing the dependance on myself or Thalgor. This player will be in charge of keeping the community up to date on important topics being discussed by the Allegiance Senate, and for collecting opinions on the topics in order to form a vote that accurately reflects the majority of these players.
In addition, I've begun work on delegating tasks away from the head administrator role so that they can be completed by more players than just one. Although these changes will take time, my goal here is to address the complaints I have read over the past few weeks and do what I can to increase the self-sustainability of this community.
Another change I've brought up with the Senate is to standardize enforcement times for every common violation of the Rules of Conduct. My hope here is to have the senate decide on a standard set of bantimes that match the level of the violation, allowing all @Allegs, Senators, and Admins to enforce our rules evenly.
For the future, I am planning on going further with "spreading the admin wealth" to the community to allow us to survive on our own without the daily interaction from the administration. This will involve proposals for changes to the way the Senate reviews and vote on their topics, decreasing the time-per-topic while hopefully retaining the same level of thoroughness. The Senate is supposed to represent the entire community, and I want to make sure that they do that accurately.
So my question then becomes - am I on the right track? I think so, but what about you? More importantly - WHY?
I want it to be clear that my ear is always open to complaints and criticism, and I will ALWAYS go out of my way to ensure that the majority of the community wins. I know it's impossible to make everyone happy all the time - we all have different viewpoints - but I WILL do what I can to please most of you all the time.
So. What do YOU have to say? What do YOU think is wrong with the community and more importantly, why? How would you go about changing it?
Feel free to reply to this post publicly, or if you prefer, drop me a PM. I'll do my best to answer each one individually but understand that I'm 1 man who just asked for about 500 PMs. It's probably best you reply here in this thread /tongue.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":P" border="0" alt="tongue.gif" />
We have played together for 6 years to keep the game alive, and I hope we can play for 6 more. That will only work if we work together.
--TE
Allegiance
Last edited by Tigereye on Wed Oct 18, 2006 4:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
The Allegiance community currently hates their sysadmin because he is doing: [Too Much] [____________|] [Too Little]
Current reason: Removing the PayPal contribute page. Send Bitcoin instead: 1EccFi98tR5S9BYLuB61sFfxKqqgSKK8Yz. This scale updates regularly.
-
Rand0m_Numb3r
- Posts: 1338
- Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 7:00 am
- Location: Madison, Wisconsin
I'm not sure what the "aftermath" is. Just the fact that some of my favorite people to fly with have been banned? Or did i miss something else?
My problem here is that people cannot tolerate other people.
I only have problems when someone is holding command, or in some way not letting me play.
This is dealt with well enough for me.
My HUGE issue PEOPLE is for the people on the non-banned side of the fence to grow up.
Someone called you a kitten huffer, who cares, actually when you think about it, its kinda funny.
These people then run/walk to the admins and say "make him stop hes hurting my feelings"
At this point you have become that annoying tattle tale in kindergarten/grade school.
It makes you even more hated, but the symptoms stop but the cause is still there stronger than before.
You may think your the victims but you quickly turn that around by getting said person banned.
Dose it make you feel happy to know that people thoroughly hate you?
There have been are player(s) that I have respected until they have done something like this.
Grow up.
The admins can't save you from being a child, and they shouldn't have to.
There is a line though, when its not just a retort to you doing something stupid, and it becomes annoying to others and you is where it happens to lie.
If anything is to be done about personal attacks allow people to have an in-game chat blacklist to mute for people that sticks upon restart.
I'm not saying profanity should be allowed, just that it should not be strictly enforced.
My problem here is that people cannot tolerate other people.
I only have problems when someone is holding command, or in some way not letting me play.
This is dealt with well enough for me.
My HUGE issue PEOPLE is for the people on the non-banned side of the fence to grow up.
Someone called you a kitten huffer, who cares, actually when you think about it, its kinda funny.
These people then run/walk to the admins and say "make him stop hes hurting my feelings"
At this point you have become that annoying tattle tale in kindergarten/grade school.
It makes you even more hated, but the symptoms stop but the cause is still there stronger than before.
You may think your the victims but you quickly turn that around by getting said person banned.
Dose it make you feel happy to know that people thoroughly hate you?
There have been are player(s) that I have respected until they have done something like this.
Grow up.
The admins can't save you from being a child, and they shouldn't have to.
There is a line though, when its not just a retort to you doing something stupid, and it becomes annoying to others and you is where it happens to lie.
If anything is to be done about personal attacks allow people to have an in-game chat blacklist to mute for people that sticks upon restart.
I'm not saying profanity should be allowed, just that it should not be strictly enforced.
Beyond the clock tower.
I think you are on a right track there Tiger. Especially with the standardized Ban Times. That's something I think should have been implemented right from the beginning. Also make sure that these things are published. Preferably in the RoC and ToS.
I think one of the thing a lot of us have had problems with is the fact we had little interaction when it came to decisions that would affect us. Yes we could talk to our Senator about it, but in the end we could only voice our opinions on things they let us know about. If they didn't bring it up, we have no idea and basically no voice for it. Perhaps one thing would be is to make two Senate forums. One where the actual voting and discussion takes place between Senators and a second where you or BV lets us know what's going on and we can talk to our senator about it or just discuss it within that forum. It would be something to think about at least so the @Allegs can get a better grasp of how the community feels about things being voted on.
Everything else you talked about I think is great and can't wait to see what comes of it.
I think one of the thing a lot of us have had problems with is the fact we had little interaction when it came to decisions that would affect us. Yes we could talk to our Senator about it, but in the end we could only voice our opinions on things they let us know about. If they didn't bring it up, we have no idea and basically no voice for it. Perhaps one thing would be is to make two Senate forums. One where the actual voting and discussion takes place between Senators and a second where you or BV lets us know what's going on and we can talk to our senator about it or just discuss it within that forum. It would be something to think about at least so the @Allegs can get a better grasp of how the community feels about things being voted on.
Everything else you talked about I think is great and can't wait to see what comes of it.
I hope you don't forget the ROC. The current one doesn't allow anyone to use MODs (UI MODs, skins, ...). /doh.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":doh:" border="0" alt="doh.gif" />
The Escapist (Justin Emerson) @ Dec 21 2010, 02:33 PM:
The history of open-source Allegiance is paved with the bodies of dead code branches, forum flame wars, and personal vendettas. But a community remains because people still love the game.
I also think you are on the right track. I believe the senate is definitely too distant from the community. We should know what the senate is doing. Maybe those on squads know more..I don't know what goes on among each squad and their senators. Maybe the forum should be viewable to all. Most likely that is too much. If so, then we still need to hear from the Senate somehow. The Senate could possibly make a public report every month and discuss what was done the previous month and what they plan to do the next month. Voting should be viewable somehow and I think every Senator that votes should say why they voted the way they did.
Standardized ban times is also a good thing. But I feel that too many short bans are handed out. If someone does something stupid give them at least an hour off or maybe even a day. If they keep doing something stupid increase the length of the ban, maybe the time * the number of times they've done it recently. Major bans should be decided by the senate. These 15 minute bans don't do anything.
I see a few issues in this community. The greatest issue by far is stacking. ELO has only made things worse for a few reasons. It only rewards which team performs better overall which leads to stacking. Having any ranking system which does not punish people for stacking will lead to stacking in an effort to boost their rank. I, for example, anti-stack in almost every game. My rating quickly plummeted to 12 and I'm sure it's only going to fall more. ELO does not accurately reflect pilots' ability and simply tacking on an autobalance feature isn't going to improve the system enough.
We need a rating system which rewards a combination of winning and pilot's individual performance in the game. Here is a rating system I posted on the development forum just so you can see the type of system I have in mind.
QUOTE Actually here is my idea. Say ELO would give each team +/- 20 points (adjusted for how long each player played) for a game using the current system. Players on the losing team lose 20 ELO. Players on the winning team are awarded maybe 1/4 of that so 5 points in this case. From that point they have the ability to earn [ELO Score]*1.5 = 30. By completing certain objectives they make progress on earning up to the bonus 30 points.
Ratio of the 30 points they are awarded for each item, so if 1/3 then they get 10 points towards the 30
+'s
1/5 Joining the game withing the first 2 minutes
1/3 Antistacking after the first 5 minutes or after there is more than 4-5 people on each team (based on the time you join, antistacking would probably be defined as the team having somewhere between 40 and 45% total ELO)
1/4 A probe dropped, not yet seen by the enemy, eyes an enemy bomber, con, or HTT
1/8 Each additional time a probe dropped, not yet seen by the enemy, eyes an enemy bomber, con, or HTT
1/5 A probe dropped, not yet seen by the enemy, eyes an enemy miner
1/10 Each additional time a probe dropped, not yet seen by the enemy, eyes an enemy miner
1/4 Killed one miner
1/8 For each additional miner kill
1/4 Killed one con
1/8 For each additional con kill
1/4 Killed one base
1/8 For each additional base kill
Only get points for highest of the following they achieve:
1/10 Killed X number of players (some formula based on total players and time of game)
1/5 Killed X*2 number of players (ditto)
1/3 Killed X*3 number of players (ditto)
1/2 Most kills on team
-'s
1/3 Stacking after the first 2 minutes (based on the time you join, stacking would probably be defined as the team having somewhere between 55 and 60% total ELO)
If some reasonable method can be used to determine nanning performance then that can be added. Otherwise you could probably give the entire team bonuses for each base kill the team gets, giving higher values based on if its a minor base, tech base, etc.
I think this would be a pretty reliable ranking system. The fractions I just got off the top of my head as I'm writing this and would need to be thought out.[/quote]
I wrote this a couple weeks ago. In addition to this we need to make it harder to earn each higher rating. So maybe for each rating a pilot goes up, the fraction for doing something (such as killing a miner) goes down. So if they are rank 0, maybe they get 1/1 for killing a miner. Someone at rank 25 might get 1/10 points for killing a miner. Ratings should peak at the actual ability of the player.
Moving on, this community is not very newbie friendly. Players need to be acceptive of newbs. Yes there are times to get frustrated by them, such as if they give away your HTT run or refuse to listen to anything you say. But the community needs to work at giving assistance, rather than boots, to newer players so we develop a community where high level, quality games are common. Players can't expect them to do everything. If you keep teams balanced than there will be a relatively equal number of inexperienced players on each team so no team is at a disadvantage.
Finally, the communities immense resistance to change is both a good and bad thing. Don't fix what's not broken right? I wouldn't be playing this same game after 6 years if it wasn't so good. The general game play should not change although it should evolve. Bugs should be fixed and things the community greatly dislikes should be changed of course. Enhancements to the user interface are usually welcome. But game play needs to evolve so the game does not get repetitive. I don't want every game I play to be IC expansion. The game play needs to evolve so that new situations occur in games and new strategies need to be used. This is mostly in the hands of the core devs, adding new factions, adding/changing technology. It is also in the hands of developers. If well designed, modifying the code to support new technologies, improving miner AI, etc can greatly enhance game play and keep things fresh.
Not that anyway is still reading this far into my post /tongue.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":P" border="0" alt="tongue.gif" /> but there's my 2 cents.
Standardized ban times is also a good thing. But I feel that too many short bans are handed out. If someone does something stupid give them at least an hour off or maybe even a day. If they keep doing something stupid increase the length of the ban, maybe the time * the number of times they've done it recently. Major bans should be decided by the senate. These 15 minute bans don't do anything.
I see a few issues in this community. The greatest issue by far is stacking. ELO has only made things worse for a few reasons. It only rewards which team performs better overall which leads to stacking. Having any ranking system which does not punish people for stacking will lead to stacking in an effort to boost their rank. I, for example, anti-stack in almost every game. My rating quickly plummeted to 12 and I'm sure it's only going to fall more. ELO does not accurately reflect pilots' ability and simply tacking on an autobalance feature isn't going to improve the system enough.
We need a rating system which rewards a combination of winning and pilot's individual performance in the game. Here is a rating system I posted on the development forum just so you can see the type of system I have in mind.
QUOTE Actually here is my idea. Say ELO would give each team +/- 20 points (adjusted for how long each player played) for a game using the current system. Players on the losing team lose 20 ELO. Players on the winning team are awarded maybe 1/4 of that so 5 points in this case. From that point they have the ability to earn [ELO Score]*1.5 = 30. By completing certain objectives they make progress on earning up to the bonus 30 points.
Ratio of the 30 points they are awarded for each item, so if 1/3 then they get 10 points towards the 30
+'s
1/5 Joining the game withing the first 2 minutes
1/3 Antistacking after the first 5 minutes or after there is more than 4-5 people on each team (based on the time you join, antistacking would probably be defined as the team having somewhere between 40 and 45% total ELO)
1/4 A probe dropped, not yet seen by the enemy, eyes an enemy bomber, con, or HTT
1/8 Each additional time a probe dropped, not yet seen by the enemy, eyes an enemy bomber, con, or HTT
1/5 A probe dropped, not yet seen by the enemy, eyes an enemy miner
1/10 Each additional time a probe dropped, not yet seen by the enemy, eyes an enemy miner
1/4 Killed one miner
1/8 For each additional miner kill
1/4 Killed one con
1/8 For each additional con kill
1/4 Killed one base
1/8 For each additional base kill
Only get points for highest of the following they achieve:
1/10 Killed X number of players (some formula based on total players and time of game)
1/5 Killed X*2 number of players (ditto)
1/3 Killed X*3 number of players (ditto)
1/2 Most kills on team
-'s
1/3 Stacking after the first 2 minutes (based on the time you join, stacking would probably be defined as the team having somewhere between 55 and 60% total ELO)
If some reasonable method can be used to determine nanning performance then that can be added. Otherwise you could probably give the entire team bonuses for each base kill the team gets, giving higher values based on if its a minor base, tech base, etc.
I think this would be a pretty reliable ranking system. The fractions I just got off the top of my head as I'm writing this and would need to be thought out.[/quote]
I wrote this a couple weeks ago. In addition to this we need to make it harder to earn each higher rating. So maybe for each rating a pilot goes up, the fraction for doing something (such as killing a miner) goes down. So if they are rank 0, maybe they get 1/1 for killing a miner. Someone at rank 25 might get 1/10 points for killing a miner. Ratings should peak at the actual ability of the player.
Moving on, this community is not very newbie friendly. Players need to be acceptive of newbs. Yes there are times to get frustrated by them, such as if they give away your HTT run or refuse to listen to anything you say. But the community needs to work at giving assistance, rather than boots, to newer players so we develop a community where high level, quality games are common. Players can't expect them to do everything. If you keep teams balanced than there will be a relatively equal number of inexperienced players on each team so no team is at a disadvantage.
Finally, the communities immense resistance to change is both a good and bad thing. Don't fix what's not broken right? I wouldn't be playing this same game after 6 years if it wasn't so good. The general game play should not change although it should evolve. Bugs should be fixed and things the community greatly dislikes should be changed of course. Enhancements to the user interface are usually welcome. But game play needs to evolve so the game does not get repetitive. I don't want every game I play to be IC expansion. The game play needs to evolve so that new situations occur in games and new strategies need to be used. This is mostly in the hands of the core devs, adding new factions, adding/changing technology. It is also in the hands of developers. If well designed, modifying the code to support new technologies, improving miner AI, etc can greatly enhance game play and keep things fresh.
Not that anyway is still reading this far into my post /tongue.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":P" border="0" alt="tongue.gif" /> but there's my 2 cents.
Last edited by aem on Wed Oct 18, 2006 12:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
WTF has ELO to do with the ROC/ban/administrative problem?! /glare.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":glare:" border="0" alt="glare.gif" />
Hey I want may ignorelist in Allegiance, so I don't have to mute the same people every time I log on! /doh.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":doh:" border="0" alt="doh.gif" />
Hey I want may ignorelist in Allegiance, so I don't have to mute the same people every time I log on! /doh.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":doh:" border="0" alt="doh.gif" />
The Escapist (Justin Emerson) @ Dec 21 2010, 02:33 PM:
The history of open-source Allegiance is paved with the bodies of dead code branches, forum flame wars, and personal vendettas. But a community remains because people still love the game.
Unless my interpretation of this is wrong, I think he was asking for more then just "ROC/ban/administrative" problems. If I'm wrong feel free to remove the ELO part of my post TE.Tigereye wrote:QUOTE (Tigereye @ Oct 18 2006, 12:40 AM) So. What do YOU have to say? What do YOU think is wrong with the community and more importantly, why? How would you go about changing it?
Stacking is an issue in this community and I posted how I would attempt to change that.
Last edited by aem on Wed Oct 18, 2006 8:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
It looks to me like you're doing what you think is right, good for you, hopefully good for Allegiance.
I would personally like to see @alleg scaled back to a manageable (& static) number. Maybe have performance reviews for each of them, go through their bans and give them a chance to explain each one, hear complains from the community about them etc to make sure they're doing their job properly.
Personally, I don't think that being the authentication administrator should necessarily make one the 'community administrator', which is why I believe there should be more 'we're not liable for what is said inside of private servers' messages around. Perhaps if the auth/lobby admins dont take such active roles in enforcement and are less visible, they will not be seen as liable by bad parents.
It might also help to add new words to the in-game word censor, maybe add a disclaimer when you try to disable the word censor; "you must be over 18 to disable this word censor", or "server administrators are liable for what is said on their own servers". Built in word censors are far less subjective than players. You really should NOT be liable, but by acting as a censor you are sticking your neck out and making yourself responsible for everything that is said in the game.
In short, it would be nice if we rewind a couple years, when the system was here at the whim of the people, not the other way around.
At the same time, now that we have the source code we can make improvements to the game. This would be a nice place for the senate to fit in, approving or denying changes that would affect gameplay.
Leaving the @alleg's to issue bans and boots for hacking/cheating/harassment/spamming.
I would personally like to see @alleg scaled back to a manageable (& static) number. Maybe have performance reviews for each of them, go through their bans and give them a chance to explain each one, hear complains from the community about them etc to make sure they're doing their job properly.
Personally, I don't think that being the authentication administrator should necessarily make one the 'community administrator', which is why I believe there should be more 'we're not liable for what is said inside of private servers' messages around. Perhaps if the auth/lobby admins dont take such active roles in enforcement and are less visible, they will not be seen as liable by bad parents.
It might also help to add new words to the in-game word censor, maybe add a disclaimer when you try to disable the word censor; "you must be over 18 to disable this word censor", or "server administrators are liable for what is said on their own servers". Built in word censors are far less subjective than players. You really should NOT be liable, but by acting as a censor you are sticking your neck out and making yourself responsible for everything that is said in the game.
In short, it would be nice if we rewind a couple years, when the system was here at the whim of the people, not the other way around.
At the same time, now that we have the source code we can make improvements to the game. This would be a nice place for the senate to fit in, approving or denying changes that would affect gameplay.
Leaving the @alleg's to issue bans and boots for hacking/cheating/harassment/spamming.
I know I havent been here long TE, but I think you are on the right track.
Making the Senate more open is a good thing.
I'm sure you'll find that one SAL isnt going to be enough, time will tell.
Trying to keep things positive and progresive will be tough with this crowd though, I think.
Hopefully we as a group can all work together and make this a better place.
I have seen on another board a area (request only access) for the Rants and BS section.
Basicaly its a non moderated area where anyone who requests access can post thier opinions and thoughts they way they feel they should.
The access agreement clearly warns that anything can happen there and by requesting access you agree that you have no right to complain about the content.
No one who requests access is denied.
That keeps the nasty stuff out of sight from those who dont want to just run into it acidentaly.
Once profanity or any other nonsense ocurs on the regular board a mod moves (not deletes, not closes) the thread to the locked out (request access only) forum.
This gets rid of the freedom of speach arguments, becase there is a place to freely vent without repercusions.
Just my $0.02
Making the Senate more open is a good thing.
I'm sure you'll find that one SAL isnt going to be enough, time will tell.
Trying to keep things positive and progresive will be tough with this crowd though, I think.
Hopefully we as a group can all work together and make this a better place.
I have seen on another board a area (request only access) for the Rants and BS section.
Basicaly its a non moderated area where anyone who requests access can post thier opinions and thoughts they way they feel they should.
The access agreement clearly warns that anything can happen there and by requesting access you agree that you have no right to complain about the content.
No one who requests access is denied.
That keeps the nasty stuff out of sight from those who dont want to just run into it acidentaly.
Once profanity or any other nonsense ocurs on the regular board a mod moves (not deletes, not closes) the thread to the locked out (request access only) forum.
This gets rid of the freedom of speach arguments, becase there is a place to freely vent without repercusions.
Just my $0.02
Last edited by cowtown on Wed Oct 18, 2006 6:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I think that as long as the people working on improving allegiance don't get burnt out. Continue to improve the site and game, it's a good thing. Be welcome to new ideas and concepts, take criticism with a grain of salt, people are trying to offer suggestions or feedback, usually this is meant to be useful and rarely a personal insult- have an open mind.
Look to those that are willing and able to take more responsibility and are interested in helping to make allegiance better, support them, offer them the tools they may need for their projects.
Don't get bogged down in the details, make an effort to spread the workload between as many people as is feasible, this will help make the community and game more dynamic as well as balance the work between many people.
Assign clear roles to groups and people so that productivity is increased, standardize concepts and rules so their is no appearence of favoritism, such as what is happening with having the @alleg acting even handed in their actions now.
/smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" />
Look to those that are willing and able to take more responsibility and are interested in helping to make allegiance better, support them, offer them the tools they may need for their projects.
Don't get bogged down in the details, make an effort to spread the workload between as many people as is feasible, this will help make the community and game more dynamic as well as balance the work between many people.
Assign clear roles to groups and people so that productivity is increased, standardize concepts and rules so their is no appearence of favoritism, such as what is happening with having the @alleg acting even handed in their actions now.
/smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" />
Last edited by jgbaxter on Wed Oct 18, 2006 6:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
n.b. I may not see a forum post replied to me or a pm sent to me for weeks and weeks...