Application process policy draft

↩  erin

Quote

when talking about applications especially, the only evidence really given is against the applicant. There's not enough evidence for both sides usually and I don't think I've ever seen players providing the same level of evidence (chat logs, screenshots etc) in favour of the applicant than they would against.

I have yet to see a single application where this applies. If the ones vouching object to the objectors' objections, (lol), then it is more than fitting to call them out. (e.g. see last two Admin applications.
Of course it is much easier to put negative evidence against an applicant, however that doens't negate the fact that the application effectively functions as a conversation.

Also, I could make the same counterpoint: when you see the applicant online on the server you may / may not see the good or bad side of them at those particular moments, therefore your opinion might be skewed.

Edit:
Ultimately it is impossible to get an objection image of the applicant, which means that the next best thing is to get all viewpoints put forth on the application, and then we can close-in on that "objective view", which is why I think it's nonsensical to bar inactives from voting.

↩  elmon You don't give me a reason as to why they can't "honestly formulate an opinion"

As an active member of the community I might be a certain image of the individual because they only act a certain way towards me etc. etc.

↩  Miwojedk What honest image of a player can an inactive user have?

Of course, if more people have an informed opinion, the judgement can be more accurate.

↩  elmon That's an argument without justification. Ergo you didn't give me a reason.

↩  Tizz

They can vote based on the discussions taken place in the thread? If an inactive user is unable to vote, then I don't see any point in allowing discussions on applications.

What constitutes an "informed opinion"?

"A player that is active on the forums & is not indefinitely banned from the server.
A player that is active in-game.
A player that is active on discord & is not indefinitely banned from the server."

this is like a poll tax lol

this is pretty bad. every player should be able to vote unless you are permbanned.

im pretty sure the only "reliable" way of you checking activity is through plan, correct me if im wrong,
what is an "active" player on the forums? what is an "active" player on discord?

i frequently still read the forums and read in-game chat through the discord.

you would probably however, with this new system, count me inactive because I have no in-game time and completely valid votes would be thrown away.

↩  elmon I think Hitler was a rather unpleasant guy.. are you going to invalidate my opinion because I had no interaction with him? You shouldn't. I'm pretty informed on what he was. I've read discussions, watched documentaries and I paid attention in history class.

Dumb argument, but I shouldn't have to say why a dumb idea is dumb when its glaringly obvious. what problem are you trying to solve by implementing this? is there that many inactive players voting on applications? if they are voting on applications does that by definition make them active?

I opened up applications to all players because I wanted everyone to feel like they had a say and a place in the community. You should look into ways to expand these rights, not take them away,

Quote

↩  zeseryu I think Hitler was a rather unpleasant guy.. are you going to invalidate my opinion because I had no interaction with him? You shouldn't. I'm pretty informed on what he was. I've read discussions, watched documentaries and I paid attention in history class.

lol alright but the thing is

Hitler is a historical figure... he's well known... because he's a historical figure. This is TotalFreedom. You don't have classes and seminars on random players here. You know what you know about Hitler because you were taught it in class, you don't need to know him to know what he did because your teacher taught you. However, if a player is inactive they have no way of knowing what the admin is like because they don't know the admin. You don't find classes on various admins and such you don't know about them until you're active and meet them, or at the very least stay active to observe them

Quote

↩  zeseryu is there that many inactive players voting on applications?

If you look at UnderTails' recent app, tons of random users joined the forum/randomly became active purely to vouch. It undermimes the voting system and means that votes are essentially rigged because what's stopping me getting 1 person to vote for every objection I get? What good is us having voting if any Tom, Dick and Harry can join the forum, go inactive, and vote anyway? What's stopping me getting a ton of irl friends, making them make accounts, and make them vote for me?

Quote

↩  zeseryu if they are voting on applications does that by definition make them active?

No. It means they voted on one application.

Quote

↩  zeseryu I think Hitler was a rather unpleasant guy.. are you going to invalidate my opinion because I had no interaction with him? You shouldn't. I'm pretty informed on what he was. I've read discussions, watched documentaries and I paid attention in history class.

While I have been able to understand both sides to this argument here, this is one of the worst analogies I've seen.

You're comparing someone applying for admin on a relatively small block game server to one of the most well documented and influential historical figures in all of history.

Of course you may need to interact with one and not the other to know what they're like...

I think we need to be careful here, so as to not ostracize about half of our active forum users.

I’d also like to add that metrics taken from Plan mean fuckall - it’s a broken system and should never be used for official purposes. The whole “activity count” on plan is a metric that holds no real value, because the way it is determined is incredibly flawed and inaccurate. Go onto plan right now, and look at the users listed under “active”, I guarantee a lot of them have not played in quite a while.

Quote

↩  RedEastWood Go onto plan right now

You can't, it's been completely broken for like a week. Which is another problem, we can't check how active people are if the website never works.

I personally feel we should allow votes from everyone but take votes from inactive players with a pinch of salt. Don't completely disregard them, but just make a little note that the player hasn't logged in for X days and seldom messages on the discord. If the voting is close then look at them with a bit more scrutiny.

Setting an exact activity index number one needs just doesn't feel like the right thing to do. You're blocking off a player with 2.99 activity index while allowing a player who has 3.01.. having a strict borderline is just weird.

Quote

↩  RedEastWood I guarantee a lot of them have not played in quite a while.

And this is an important point. It takes several days of complete inactivity for ones index to actually begin to drop, and would definitely take a while to drop down to below 3.

I can understand why a vote from a player who has not been seen on the server in months should not count the same as a vote from a person who is spending a lot of time on the server with a good bit of that being at the same time as the applicant.

But I don't think completely alienating their vote is the right way to do things.

A discussion on the admin application process turned into a fucking debate on Hitler, what kind of bullshit drug is this community on?

↩  simplynick sounds like my job is being done perfectly

The debate seems to be about whether votes should be based on discussion or on direct observation. (It is also an excellent example of Godwin's law.)

If discussion is the most important, then it makes sense that inactive players also get to participate. This discussion is the replacement for education in the Hitler analogy above. The disadvantage is that bandwagoning can occur, and there are examples of this happening.

If direct observation is the most important, then obviously inactive players cannot really contribute. However, I think Miwo makes a fair point that if votes should be based exclusively on your own observations, then there is no reason to allow any kind of discussion at all.

↩  elmon geez man those were rhetorical questions... I did read it, its just awful. I infact even gave an example of me being active on the discord and forums but under this new system would be mark us "inactive"

im criticizing because you're taking away peoples ability to vote. why? you're afraid of having more community engagement?

the metrics you are using to decide if someone is active or not is awful. what difference does a player who posts 14 messages on the forums vs 15? nothing. 50 meaningful messages in the past 14 day. what are meaningful messages? are you going to count them? what if i have multiple discord accounts? what if I just like reading the chat and not talking myself? do you see how many complications this can bring up in the future... you're pulling arbitrary numbers and using an unreliable tool {plan} to decide whether or not a person can VOTE. not apply for admin. VOTE.

I deliberately did not like activity checks even to admins because they didnt solve the actual problem. Can you answer me what problem you're solving here by instating activity checks on PLAYERS instead of dodging my question again?