RedEastWood - Reinstatement

Please Note: The TotalFreedom Forum has now been put into a read-only mode. Total Freedom has now closed down and will not be returning in any way, shape or form. It has been a pleasure to lead this community and I wish you all the best for your futures.

    ↩ @'billy7oblos' would like to let you know that without reasoning this vote probably won't be counted. You can't just toss an objection to derail reinstatements/applications anymore.

    Patrolling the Mojave almost makes you wish for a nuclear winter.

    ↩  erin from my early days on the server red accused me "threatening to crash the server on guild chat", even though it was super untrue. He is like this to many new players

    Quote

    ↩  erin Vouch.

    would like to let you know that without reasoning this vote probably won't be counted. You can't just toss a vouch to derail reinstatements/applications anymore.

    ↩ @'billy7oblos' Ah you probably should not have dug this up, perhaps you did under the assumption I had forgotten what transpired - sadly I didn’t.

    Admins have access to guild chats, and so we are able to see what users message each other. You were stating how you were going to crash the server to your peers in the guild you were in. For further clarity, I wasn’t the only admin who was aware of this - many of them were at the time. I was the one who decided to speak up about it, if it wouldn’t have been me it would’ve been someone else.

    This culminated in your ban, and subsequent ban appeal; in which you claimed that your items did not crash the server. You recorded a video of yourself going on a Minehut server and using the same exploit you used on TF. I assume the intention was to prove that the item does not do anything, but it kicked you from the server. You were forced to leave the server at the exact moment the exploit was used.

    I also think you’ve forgotten who I am. I was very fair with you. I changed my vote to a vouch near the end of your unban appeal because I could see your dedication to getting unbanned. I was lenient and believed you deserved a second chance. I fail to see how I was malevolent at all.

    “ This user is clearly committed to getting unbanned on this server; as is demonstrated through his incessant pestering and exhaustive analysis of the Server Conduct Policy.”
    “ As such, I think it fair to give this individual one last chance, to be able to join and play the server.”

    https://forum.totalfreedom.me/d/912-invalid-ban-reason/41

    I have proven to you just now that I acted fairly, took your reasoning into account, and I thought you deserved a second chance out of fairness and the sheer dedication you displayed on your unban appeal.

    I am not going to address the obvious issue of time, given this issue happened 8 months ago, because I feel it fair to address your concerns. I can continue this conversation on discord with you if you wish.

    Quote

    ↩ @'billy7oblos' would like to let you know that without reasoning this vote probably won't be counted. You can't just toss a vouch to derail reinstatements/applications anymore.

    Directly copying and pasting my point because you can't make your own just won't work. Red has already addressed your "reasoning" for objection but I would like to make one point clear - you're bringing up something that happened way before he resigned so I don't entirely think it was relevant since he earned a senior admin rank after what you claimed went down. Bringing up something he said in February is completely useless.

    I vouched because there's no reason to object. Red resigned of his own accord, and since then he has not done anything untoward as an active member of the discord server and an operator on the server. There's absolutely no reason to object to him being reinstated to his senior admin role, which, as I've already said, he was voted by the community to have been deserving of several months after he made that statement.

    Patrolling the Mojave almost makes you wish for a nuclear winter.

    Quote

    ↩  You! We have more than enough admins on the team

    A fair analysis and is something I agree with, but I have earned my senior admin position and it is mine to claim unless I was suspended, which I was not. I find it absurd that you object to me becoming an admin simply because we have too many of them, as if I haven't dedicated almost the past year to TF and bettering it. I am honestly quite shocked.

    Quote

    ↩  You! It feels like this reinstatement was created primarily due to the circumstances at the time

    Again, a fair analysis as I did post this reinstatement around the time of the shutdown. However you missed a crucial point in your efforts to object, I made this reinstatement after Wild announced he would not be shutting TF down.

    A simple check of the date and time I made this reinstatement will corroborate that fact. Ryan made his post announcing that he would not shut down TF eight whole hours before I made this post. As such, I also find this reason to object on my application strange and uninformed at best.

    I am trying my very best to respond to objections fairly and to take merit where I can, but this objection honestly leaves me with a lot of doubts with admins abilities to make informed decisions. I am not aware of any historical circumstance where one can/has objected to a reinstatement (for resignation) simply because we have "too many admins", especially given what I have done for this server in the past.

    Quote

    ↩  You! We have more than enough admins on the team

    I expect you to give and have given an objection with the same reasoning on all of the recent admin applications that have been written in these past few weeks, then.

    I mean no disrespect to the recent candidates, I'm just pointing out a logical flaw. Why haven't you objected on any of the applications in recent weeks with the same logic? Why are you sitting here and letting new admins apply and get (deservedly) approved while deciding that a seasoned veteran admin of the server shouldn't be allowed because we have too many? There's a current active admin application which you didn't add a vote to and one approved within the last week - you seemed fine to let new people apply (even recommending one) but you're blocking this one?

    And again, I mean no disrespect to any of the new admins or people who have applied for admin. This is a way of thinking I'm criticising.

    I don't believe this vote was made in good faith at all.

    Patrolling the Mojave almost makes you wish for a nuclear winter.

    Quote

    ↩  RedEastWood I made this reinstatement after Wild announced he would not be shutting TF down.

    TF still might be shutting down.

    Quote

    ↩  RedEastWood I am not aware of any historical circumstance where one can/has objected to a reinstatement (for resignation) simply because we have “too many admins”, especially given what I have done for this server in the past.

    I am - and it has been said that it is a valid reason to object.

    Quote

    ↩  RedEastWood this objection honestly leaves me with a lot of doubts with admins abilities to make informed decisions

    Take that up with the EAO.

    Quote

    ↩  erin I expect you to give and have given an objection with the same reasoning on all of the recent admin applications that have been written in these past few weeks, then

    I voted on this after those applications went through.

    Quote

    ↩  You! We have more than enough admins on the team

    i dont personally think its a great reason for any objection. im just seeing it like theres no cap on how many admin spaces are available and theres no practical harm in having more on the team unless they keep coming back and doing fuck all. but especially if they've been on the team and done shit before i dont think that unless is the case if you get what im trying to say

    assrix, assryx, asterisk, *

    awesomeist tf blokey

    Red has worked hard for the community while he was a staff member, so I'll vouch.

    It's up to the owner (Ryan) and the EAO (Video) to decide additional conditions for staff applications.

    TotalFreedom's Executive Community & Marketing Manager

    Quote

    ↩  You! TF still might be shutting down.

    And? He reinstated after the server was given at least three months to live. That shows to me that he likely wants to help the server out using his skills and make sure it is not shut down. What else can you be taking from that?

    Quote

    ↩  You! I am - and it has been said that it is a valid reason to object.

    It's a valid reason to object in some cases maybe, but there's not much behind it. First of all, you failed to cast a vote on a recently approved application and you have yet to cast a vote on a currently opened application. Both of these are points I made in my first post, which were not addressed.

    Quote

    ↩  You! Take that up with the EAO.

    You're in very little of a position to be doubling down here.

    Quote

    ↩  You! I voted on this after those applications went through.

    Thank you for making my point easier to write. A recent new admin application was accepted before this vote, and you made no attempt to cast any kind of vote or air your concerns on that application. You simply waited until it went through, and then objected here.

    There is also, and I have said this about three times, an active admin application which you have not casted a vote on. Now, I do not doubt that the applicant is worthy of becoming admin and the votes by others and the way the applicant has behaved indicate that the application will likely go favourably. But the application was written mere hours after the announcement the server was closing and under the guise there were just weeks left.

    It makes absolutely zero sense that, if having too many admins was an issue, that you are fine to let the application get approved but not fine to have the reinstatement approved. It's logical that someone who is reinstating to a senior admin position should take priority over a new applicant in this event, however I feel both should be approved. You also failed to address this point around my first time of asking. So I am asking you again to please explain why this should get denied in your opinion, but new admins are fine to come in.

    Quote

    ↩  You! I spoke with the EAO, they said it was fine to vote with that reason, so I’ve voted fairly.

    No, no, no you just haven't voted fairly. Just because it's a technically valid reason to cast an objection doesn't mean you can just toss it into one reinstatement. One player still has senior admin status on this server despite not logging in since July 24th. We haven't had an activity removal in quite some time and therefore the number is inflated by inactive players.

    Instead of asking the EAO for a straw you could grasp at, could you not enquire about an activity removal instead if you're so concerned about the inflated saconfig list? You prioritised keeping a player who hasn't logged in since July on the admin list in favour of an active player wanting to reinstate.

    Patrolling the Mojave almost makes you wish for a nuclear winter.

    To clarify given this has been a shit show so far.

    You can vouch or object for any reason you wish. The eao has the final call on weighing those justifications and forming their decision. If they deem a object or vouch a low or poor reason they may discount or weigh it less.

    There's been a lot of effort in this thread to argue that a reason isn't valid, to clarify that's not really acceptable... I'd encourage everyone who's replied to this thread to review the admin application comments guidance.

    Wild1145

    Network Owner at TotalFreedom

    Managing Director at ATLAS Media Group Ltd.

    Founder & Owner at MastodonApp.UK

    I'm not going to vote on this, nor am I currently processing it (I plan to do that later tonight), but I'm going to make this clear: you can vote arguing that there are too many admins. A quota has never been needed to argue that. However, when voting with an argument like this you need to be consistent across all ongoing applications and not just a particular applicant.

    image.png