Allegiance

[sgt_baker]

The problems that arise in the running of an online community have long been evident in Allegiance. Broadly speaking, these boil down to two areas:The mode of interaction between admins and the whole community.The interaction between individual members of the community, and the responsibility that any particular member has towards any, and all, other members.Given the nature of the above points, it is clear that, at the extremes of the spectrum, there are two methods for running said online community. These are, with regards to allegiance:Admins rule with an iron fist + All players are ignorant to the needs of their fellow players. This method is devoid of tolerance and understanding, whether between players or between players and admins. The end result is that the admins must react forcefully regardless of the intricacies of the particular situation at hand.Administrative intervention is only required when a situation arises where the solution is beyond the means of the community at large + Players 'self-govern'. Disputes occur, but rarely. On the whole players are positively responsive to their own attitudes towards the game and community, and the attitudes of others on equal terms.Clearly, given the bi-polar nature of the listed models, Allegiance will never completely fulfill either extreme. It is my feeling (and experience), however, that the overall ethos of the Alleg community tends towards the second model. Players are expected to, on the whole, resolve disputes internally whilst also maintaining an attitude towards their conduct, and the conduct of others, that prevents large-scale disputes in the first place.

It has become starkly clear that in recent months certain well known players have been flaunting this ethos. This, and a confluence of other circumstances, has required (or forced?) the admins to take steps which are extreme in the eyes of many, hence the recent uproar. Whilst the actions of the players concerned and the admins are currently under review, it is clear that had everyone concerned kept to the straight-and-narrow, none of this would have happened.

Hence, I will ask this of the community:

Players:

We all play a game that is very intense by design. The sheer number of possible outcomes, tactics, roles, squads, cores, developers (and probably much more) mean that differences of opinion are inevitable. When these do occur, it is our responsibility to act with moderation and maturity, and to prevent longer-lasting disputes. The admins are all volunteers and, I'm sure, have better things to do than sort out our squabbles. We're all here to have fun and enjoy playing. This concerns actions in-game as well as on the forums. I'd implore everyone to be a little more considerate of the delicate balance in which Alleg finds itself. Without committed players it dies. Intra-community argument is a contribution to a slow demise. Have fun playing and have fun being a part of the community!

Core-devs, instructors, @allegs, senators, squad leaders and ad-hoc leaders etc:

Any un-reigned conflict between or within these groups is severely detrimental to the community. When you accepted these positions, regardless of how or why you got there, you accepted a much greater responsibility than a normal alleg player. Your actions will directly and indirectly influence not only the actions, but also the mindsets of many of our players. As such is is absolutely imperative that you prevent disarray within the group. Any such disarray will only cascade into the community at large.

I won't address the admins at this point as I know that they have already made changes to prevent these cluster$#@!s. Although, I hope that they have fun in the role too, and don't have to deal with too much of everyone else failing to be sensible.

My (abridged) tuppence /tongue.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":P" border="0" alt="tongue.gif" />

Baker.

[batman]

TE -- Your post seems logical. We, as a community, need to understand that things will be as good or as bad as WE (the community) make it.

Transparency and accountability are things to be expected both from the administrators AND from the members of the community. I do not envy you or the other admins and @alleg folks. I guess you big paycheck from Allegiance makes it all worthwhile, eh? /laugh.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":lol:" border="0" alt="laugh.gif" />

I like the stadardization of the bans, as it will reduce the perceived 'arbitrariness' that admins have been accused of.

I also think you are on the right track on delegating more tasks and responsibilities out to others. Hopefully, this will slow the burn-out rate for admins and will insure checks and balances in the community as we move forward.

I think you are on the right track. I hope that we can all show TE and each other the repsect we ALL deserve. Remember to think before you hit the PM button for an admin.

[chasov]

ok I strongly agree with the thing that people should grow up (yes that includes me).
Also i agree on the fact the ELO isnt very good right now, i was thinking maybe
(points in game)/(1/10of your currenk rank)
or something like that, so experianced players get less points from the same game then noobs do.

[tmc]

I think you're on the right track.

The biggest priority should be to decentralize alleg, which is what you're doing. Basically, we need to make sure that noone (and no small group of people) has the power to kill alleg if they so decide to leave. Pook pretty much had that power - if he had decided to leave and shut down asgs, we wouldve been in major trouble. Similarly, if thal decides to leave without telling anyone, it would be extremely hard to get back together. Decentralizing this power is good both for the admins (hey, less work...) and for the players (the game cant die).

then theres the whole issue of bans and such, which really isnt as important. I personnally think that most moderating should stop, and that the only moderation left would be whatever is necessary to not get thal sued. Of course this is just my personal opinion, and I'm sure many others feel we need a hyperactive @alleg supersquad to make sure that everyone is nice in order to get newbs to stay.

[Tigereye]

A few of you have brought up ELO, and I agree that I've seen quite a few complaints about it in the past as well.

Once these first few balls I've started get rolling I'll address the ranking system to ensure that what we use has the backing of the community.

Baby steps.

--TE

[Da_Muck]

With the exception of the 'accidentally'(?) banned Aeris, (which has since been reversed) I do have to support the recent decisions of both the old and the new administration team. of the 4 people who have been permabanned, the only one who's surprised me was an individual who's apparent misconduct happened during the whole issue, which I missed most of due to just not careing and not having read the boards.

From the sounds of it, I didnt miss that much except for the actuall turnover of most admin functions to TE. I happen to agree that we just might be better off without some of those personages who decided to go out... well, Flaming, as it were.

As to what could be made better? I think your on the right track TE. Certainly standardization of ban times for the various 'grades' of offenses will go a long way. The rest depends on the community to take a step back and think before they act. Certainly thinking before posting is always a good thing. If we can behave maturely, there is no reason for the @alleg's to have to go around with shcist kickers on all the time expecting trouble. If we as a community cant learn that maturity, well, we deserve what we get.

We, as a community, really were way too dependant on a few key people. We need to move away from that, as to expect things to remain static under such situations is just plain stupid. This more spread out authority and responsiblity is certainly a step in the correct direction. The only other concern is finding a way to keep this community afloat financially without expecting a few key people to foot 90% of the cost. Thats actually the way things were under the old administration... They were shelling out the gold, so they damn well had the right to make the rules!

[Greator_SST]

QUOTE (tmc @ Oct 18 2006, 07:00 PM) ...we need to make sure that noone (and no small group of people) has the power to kill alleg if they so decide to leave. Pook pretty much had that power

...the 'we' have nothing to do with the fact that a small group of people have the power. The reason Pook has the power is because he did the work. More power to him. And to all the people who do the work here. I show up to play and I gladly play by their rules. It's very simple. Personally, I don't feel they owe me anything at all. I'm quite happy and quite grateful that they've chosen to spend their free hours (and spare computing dollars) making this game available to, what, 50 people out of five billion who are on at any given moment in time?

QUOTE (Tigereye @ Oct 18 2006, 07:20 PM) A few of you have brought up ELO, and I agree that I've seen quite a few complaints about it in the past as well.

Once these first few balls I've started get rolling I'll address the ranking system to ensure that what we use has the backing of the community.

I'd really like to see the people who complain about ELO argue why the top 100 leaderboard people don't deserve to be there. Let's get personal about it. Let's name names. For one thing, I'm not on it. And I feel I'm a pretty decent pilot. But does that lead me to believe that ELO sucks? I'd also really like to see the people who complain about ELO explain why their ELO is so high. Is it because they are being unfairly compensated for inferior talent?

No, it's just complaints. ELO is a fine relative measure of skill. And if the balancing system were in place, it would be even better. So before you go and try to devise a new system of ranking that will appease the few, understand that probably the vast majority are perfectly ok with the system as is.

And yes, I'll hasten to add, IMO.

[batman]

IF ELO is to be discussed here (which I think should be a seperate thread for NEXT WEEK), I think it is fine. The good players ARE ranking up -- relative to others like me who are ranking down to their true voobness. Let it ride it is a statistical system that, on the whole, should even out.

One area that has recieved considerable mention re ELO is a seperate command rank. Perhaps assigning addtional points to the commander's rank, based on his/her win percentage??

ANother thing that WOULD be nice would be to see the entire playerbase with ranking -- it would give you a better idea about where you stand (and who you might be able to pod) /mrgreen.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="mrgreen.gif" />

But, this is NEXT WEEK'S topic, eh?

[Tigereye]

There are like 20 things going on right now, ELO won't be looked at for a while. Partly because of the current things going on, but mostly in order to give it the time it needs to become somewhat accurate.

It's hard to critically analyze a system that hasn't had a chance to prove itself. Even though it's sharing the same name now (ELO) the calculations are different from before it was reset this summer.

--TE

[Fell]

Sounds good TE.

I like the fact we are getting an active Senator-At-Large. I think Thalgor was too busy to actively fullfill this rol.

Decentralisation is good as long as you don't go too far or it can get messy.

Standard ban times also good so the admin bans are consistent.

Getting the Senate to be more active and vote more on different issues is important and I hope they will remain as active after the dust has settled.