Poll: Does the current staff team need to be reviewed?
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
Yes
53.33%
24 53.33%
No
46.67%
21 46.67%
Total 45 vote(s) 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

[-]
Main Menu
Portal
Forums
Wiki
Rules
FAQs
Events Calendar
Downloads

[-]
Latest Threads
Where Are You Now?
Last Post: Aphetoros
09-06-2019 11:24 AM
» Replies: 7
» Views: 208
What is glistening
Last Post: TwilightDisciple
06-18-2019 06:41 PM
» Replies: 2
» Views: 1339
You Can't Go Home Again
Last Post: Scout
03-15-2019 09:24 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 698
You are a fond memory. Good night, CoTH...
Last Post: Stealthscout
09-05-2018 03:04 PM
» Replies: 25
» Views: 83269
"Years of Service" Awards
Last Post: Maulbane
05-26-2018 09:58 PM
» Replies: 100
» Views: 3238

[-]
Who's Online
There are currently no members online.

[-]
Google AdStuff

REFORM!
#1
Well, as you can see from our 10 minutes of "High School Drama" [great term there Kretol] things have to change around here. Someone will say here it's just haters being haters, but it isn't if you take a moment to look at the people who have left who are mostly long standing CotH members with a previous staff status or a high social status on the server. The ragequits are NEVER pointless. They ALWAYS have a point, and somewhere it will be valid. For that point to be backed up, as it has been from previous posts, across the board then it's going to be pretty much conclusive. It's true.

Theres my introduction done, so what am I proposing? An overhaul of the entire staffing team pending review. Yes, yes, this will take a while, but really staff members should be assessed for their input into the server and not just left to be staff as soon as they are promoted. I have personally looked over GM records and it doesn't really seem to add up in all honesty that some longer standing staff members have done less for the server (in our forum view, we obviously don't know about what's happening in private) than the newer ones! And yes, I have considered how active these staff members are, and I stick to my point there. Staff members are there to help the server. If they aren't, what's the point? A shiny name? Some respect?

At the time of writing I am very dissillusioned with this server, in every sense of the word really, but I'm going to stay to see if improvements can be, and are, made.

Edit: Added poll.
PM
#2
For god's sake this.

It's about damn time, too.




Move him into the sun—
Gently its touch awoke him once,
At home, whispering of fields half-sown.
Always it woke him, even in France,
Until this morning and this snow.
If anything might rouse him now
The kind old sun will know.

Think how it wakes the seeds,—
Woke, once, the clays of a cold star.
Are limbs, so dear-achieved, are sides,
Full-nerved—still warm—too hard to stir?
Was it for this the clay grew tall?
—O what made fatuous sunbeams toil
To break earth’s sleep at all?
[Image: 62675bf4fd.jpg] [Image: 0e7357dcfe.jpg]
PM
#3
Ben Wrote:Well, as you can see from our 10 minutes of "High School Drama" [great term there Kretol] things have to change around here. Someone will say here it's just haters being haters, but it isn't if you take a moment to look at the people who have left who are mostly long standing CotH members with a previous staff status or a high social status on the server. The ragequits are NEVER pointless. They ALWAYS have a point, and somewhere it will be valid. For that point to be backed up, as it has been from previous posts, across the board then it's going to be pretty much conclusive. It's true.

Theres my introduction done, so what am I proposing? An overhaul of the entire staffing team pending review. Yes, yes, this will take a while, but really staff members should be assessed for their input into the server and not just left to be staff as soon as they are promoted. I have personally looked over GM records and it doesn't really seem to add up in all honesty that some longer standing staff members have done less for the server (in our forum view, we obviously don't know about what's happening in private) than the newer ones! And yes, I have considered how active these staff members are, and I stick to my point there. Staff members are there to help the server. If they aren't, what's the point? A shiny name? Some respect?

At the time of writing I am very dissillusioned with this server, in every sense of the word really, but I'm going to stay to see if improvements can be, and are, made.

Quoted for truth. Thank you for writing this, good sir.
[Image: af7tll.gif] [Image: 4j4aw7.gif] [Image: 33bfrtk.gif][Image: 2jxrg7.gif]
[Click on a character to learn more about them!]
#4
Something must me done, yes, but we must do so with a wise and cool head.
So Ivan say to me "Who was talking device then?"

And then Sergei say "But Ivan is dead"

That is when I realize Sergei was bear.
PM
#5
Ben Wrote:Well, as you can see from our 10 minutes of "High School Drama" [great term there Kretol] things have to change around here. Someone will say here it's just haters being haters, but it isn't if you take a moment to look at the people who have left who are mostly long standing CotH members with a previous staff status or a high social status on the server. The ragequits are NEVER pointless. They ALWAYS have a point, and somewhere it will be valid. For that point to be backed up, as it has been from previous posts, across the board then it's going to be pretty much conclusive. It's true.

I disagree with this premise.

Just because some people sparked drama and rage-quit does not mean we need change, first of all. Drama will exist even in a "perfect" server. There's little we can do about that. Nor can you say that ragequits have a point, because they don't. It's an angry person posting hateful things to a community that he is burning his bridge to. What point does he have in doing this other than venting? He certainly doesn't want to see improvement at this point, as he's cementing the fact that he can never return, so what's the point?

Now, I am not on the server much these days, but I know enough to point out a couple things, here, because I was around when some of these "former staff members" were and when they were demoted. If someone is a "former staff member", one has to ask why the word "former" is there. Because, ya know, we didn't demote people for no reason. The fact that we did demote some should be proof enough that we do look at what GMs do, both in terms of work and behavior, and move, or remove, them accordingly.
Have you hugged an orc today?
- I am not tech support. Please do not contact me regarding technical issues. -
PM
#6
This was done with a cool head, in all honesty. I refrained from attacking GMs and kept it formal. I really believe this should be done. This is not a threat to the GM team, [they do do a good job] as I'm sure many of them would return after this, but some would not unfortunately, and would return to the base as players.

And Grakor, they are a former staff member, usually, because they chose to left the staff team. Which is indicated in their ragequit. Or, in Secrettom's case, other reasons. But also, someone "sparked drama" for a reason. Nobody sits there and thinks 'HAH! I'm going to spoof up the server and leave!' and if they do, which has happened before, it is obvious from their rhetoric. They cemented that they would not return because they did not believe the improvement could occur. I do. Others do. And so we are staying here on the premise that improvement happens. They may, in fact, incur a rage post and following drama because they are annoyed with conditions or other things which will be to do with the reason for the drama. And also, they may be burning their bridge because they believed it to be wittled down to nothing more than a tight rope, by that stage?

Anyway, you know what I think and please consider it. You aren't going to change my opinion, but 'm still going to stay whatever happens.
PM
#7
Grakor456 Wrote:Just because some people sparked drama and rage-quit does not mean we need change, first of all.
No, you don't NEED to change, but you should ALWAYS be looking for ways to improve. If the sever stayed the way it was since day one, you'd have a crappy server. Take the bad and make it into something good and new instead of trying to fight back. It's a lot more effective. That being said, the original post wasn't a harsh statement. Merely Ben's opinion.

Quote:Nor can you say that ragequits have a point, because they don't.
Perhaps not to you they don't, especially when they're targeted towards you. However, if it was one of your friends ragequitting, and they stated all of their reasons as to why, there's a good chance you may agree with them. Just saying it's possible for ragequits to be valid.

Quote:What point does he have in doing this other than venting? He certainly doesn't want to see improvement at this point, as he's cementing the fact that he can never return, so what's the point?
In the simple, perhaps futile hopes that the server will change for the better.

Quote:If someone is a "former staff member", one has to ask why the word "former" is there. Because, ya know, we didn't demote people for no reason. The fact that we did demote some should be proof enough that we do look at what GMs do, both in terms of work and behavior, and move, or remove, them accordingly.
I'm not even touching this one. You should know all the things wrong with this statement, ESPECIALLY the last bit. When GMs are picked through popularity instead of what they can do, there's something itchy in Chinatown.
[Image: af7tll.gif] [Image: 4j4aw7.gif] [Image: 33bfrtk.gif][Image: 2jxrg7.gif]
[Click on a character to learn more about them!]
#8
I'd like to point out that the only person I've ever seen step down from GM'ship publicly was Sersay. That was ages ago. Everyone else that I have witnessed was demoted/going to be demoted and with them ragequitting in the manner they have been, it shows that they were obviously demoted within good reason.

One could even argue that part of what you are arguing for was being done and is what was causing this drama. Take what I say or leave it, I said it.
10,000 days in the fire is long enough,
You're going home...
PM
#9
Grakor456 Wrote:
Quote:If someone is a "former staff member", one has to ask why the word "former" is there. Because, ya know, we didn't demote people for no reason. The fact that we did demote some should be proof enough that we do look at what GMs do, both in terms of work and behavior, and move, or remove, them accordingly.
I'm not even touching this one. You should know all the things wrong with this statement, ESPECIALLY the last bit. When GMs are picked through popularity instead of what they can do, there's something itchy in Chinatown.


This. . . Is true.
[Image: 293D4BE4-7170-4C2A-B8BF-7EA572513EBD.jpg]
Spoiler:
[Image: Lazuri65.png]
PM
#10
No, GMs AREN'T picked through popularity, and I don't know where people are getting this theory from. I'm not trying to give myself a better look or anything, but I wasn't popular at all. Mono wasn't, Cressy sure as hell wasn't, Rensin and Nostra weren't either, nor Esthunril. There has always been discussions on who should be a GM candidate. If people were being selected because they're popular, there'd be a lot more people on the team, I guarantee.

That's all I came to this topic to say. Honestly? I don't even know what to make of this. It just seems players aren't understanding OUR viewpoint and are instead listening to those who are getting the sharp end of the stick. I can't help but feel that people don't even care for our viewpoint anymore and instead are just expecting us to spoonfeed them everything. And if they don't get it their way they throw a hissy fit and people join them because they think it sounds right. And furthermore, now people are making it harder on US to actually do our job: Which is helping the server, however it may seem to you guys.

EDIT: In fact, the only obvious person I can think of who was popular... was Lethys and possibly Lucelia. Maybe even Piken.
"I am more afraid of one hundred sheep led by a lion than one hundred lions led by a sheep."
PM
#11
Esthrunil Wrote:One could even argue that part of what you are arguing for was being done and is what was causing this drama. Take what I say or leave it, I said it.

This.

If Lethys, or anyone else, told you that they were demoted because they were leaving or any such reasons, they're most likely lying to you. Lethys was forcibly demoted because of behavioral issues that he was constantly warned about, and I think the fact that he feels he can drag everyone's personal and private lives out into the public eye in order to mock or hurt them is proof enough of what kind of person he is. I have no need to speak any more on him.

Also, I have no way of proving that we do not, in fact, promote or recruit out of simple popularity, beyond offering these simple facts:

1. We've had this feedback before. This feedback was, in fact, the reason we recruited some of the people we did. Hawk, Cressy, TimmyD, DuskWolf, Anski, and Rigley are some examples of people we recruited partly *because* they were not part of any GM circle/clique at the time of their recruitment.

2. Going further, TimmyD was disliked by several GMs on his recruitment, and several others were pretty unknown to several members of staff when they were recruited.

We are always looking for ways to improve, but I do not believe that this particular spot of drama is in any way a sign that we need a major change to our staff or staffing policies.
Have you hugged an orc today?
- I am not tech support. Please do not contact me regarding technical issues. -
PM
#12
Hawk Wrote:No, GMs AREN'T picked through popularity, and I don't know where people are getting this theory from. I'm not trying to give myself a better look or anything, but I wasn't popular at all. Mono wasn't, Cressy sure as hell wasn't, Rensin and Nostra weren't either, nor Esthunril. There has always been discussions on who should be a GM candidate. If people were being selected because they're popular, there'd be a lot more people on the team, I guarantee.

That's all I came to this topic to say. Honestly? I don't even know what to make of this. It just seems players aren't understanding OUR viewpoint and are instead listening to those who are getting the sharp end of the stick. I can't help but feel that people don't even care for our viewpoint anymore and instead are just expecting us to spoonfeed them everything. And if they don't get it their way they throw a hissy fit and people join them because they think it sounds right. And furthermore, now people are making it harder on US to actually do our job: Which is helping the server, however it may seem to you guys.

EDIT: In fact, the only obvious person I can come up with being popular... was Lethys and possibly Lucelia.

Let me rephrase what I said then -- people who were popular with the GM staff. Either through sucking up or agreeing with everything they say, for lack of a better way of putting it. I'm not saying it's everyone, but the more recent GMs seem to get picked through it. As for "It just seems players aren't understanding OUR viewpoint and are instead listening to those who are getting the sharp end of the stick," that statement seems a bit contradictory. If someone's getting the sharp end of the stick, obviously they're going to be complaining about it, and obviously people are going to listen.

Anyway, I'm done. Ben, I apologize for clogging up your thread.
[Image: af7tll.gif] [Image: 4j4aw7.gif] [Image: 33bfrtk.gif][Image: 2jxrg7.gif]
[Click on a character to learn more about them!]
#13
No, they're only going to hear what the banned person is going to tell. They're not going to get the whole story, it's going to be incredibly biased.

EDIT: And this is happening right now - who are you, hell, the playerbase even, to judge on who gets picked without knowing what even happened? It's almost as if the whole picture is a lost concept for some, and then it becomes widespread BS. If suckups were becoming GMs, well, you wouldn't even get GMs - just people with nifty commands available. No one is promoted for being a suck up, or agreeing with whatever they say, ever. People need to stop thinking they know best when they haven't seen, as I've said, the whole picture.

EDIT2: I'll note that the only reason this happened is because Luce and Leth made a ragepost. If it was any other Peon for example, everyone would just go "lol nub". The only reason people listen to him is because he's popular, and then all his lies just go forth and conquer.

EDIT3: Added more just because of how furious I am with you people.
"I am more afraid of one hundred sheep led by a lion than one hundred lions led by a sheep."
PM
#14
Kiffles, I agree with what you're saying so keep going to your hearts content.

Grakor, are you going to ignore what I said earlier or not?
And in response to me being a drama-mongerer [in unofficial terms], I made this post early on so that it would avoid causing drama, which unfortunately did not happen, but simply rise and fall with the existing bout. It is quite obvious from my initial post that I was not seeking to cause drama by the formality, and the firmality I have unwillingly applied to the rest of my posts, and the lack of personal information of any real sort used.

Secrettom told us he left for those reasons and I have no reason not to believe him unless stated otherwise. A policy I stick to is that people are 'innocent until proven guilty'. In my eyes, hypothetically being the judge, the case has inconclusive evidence as of yet for the opposition, and further stacking evidence for the defense.

If you are, as you state, always seeking to improve, then this 'drama' is a perfect oppertunity to do so. People need to look at why this happened, and what can be done from preventing this happening in the future, at least not to the same extent as many of the server's longer lasting members leaving. They may be in a 'mood' but usually those moods have a reason behind them. If you are calling them a 'tantrum' then there is always a spark, no matter how small. I have not said you need to change the policies any more than you have stated (Or incinuated that no longer will GMs be taken for their popularity), just that the staff team is reviewed with those very same policies in mind.

Hawk: The playerbase are the people the GM team are meant to be serving. That you asked this question regretably disappoints me. I still respect you, of course, but I am disappointed by that statement. The GM team are never above the players in anything but responsibility. The administrators are. The GMs are, on the server, nothing but players with added responsibilities.
PM
#15
I think I might have to disagree with my fellow GMs here to some extent. I feel that many, if not all of us were chosen because of the connections we've had with other GMs. I can safely say that I was because I haven't had any experience and doing anything like this what-so-ever but was still willing to anyway. I could name names here and make some chart the links GMs to one another. I think it is because it's easier to place one's trust into someone they know and feel they get along with.

This has its obvious flaws, people aren't perfect. Some aren't skilled, some aren't willing, some just want the shiny title. So I'm not going to say I'm against this idea even though it may jeopardize my own position as a GM (my work has been lacking some lately) but perhaps also a new system in which people are elected as a GM should be put in place rather than the 'lack of system' we have now. I'm sure there are unknown players our there who have a lot of experience in hosting servers, technical wow features and whatnot that are probably being ignored because a lot of us haven't associated ourselves with you.

I'm just throwing out a tired mess here but I think we should have an option for people to apply themselves and tell us their previous experience and how they can help so that we don't end up with a bias GM team that people feel we have now.

Sound good? Maybe?
[Image: Untitled-332.png]
PM




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

youth-backhand
This forum uses Lukasz Tkacz MyBB addons.