Executives shouldn't be appointed by the owner

I absolutely can... The entire purpose of an executive admin is to do the work that I would otherwise be doing, but don't have the time or expertise to do by myself.

The alternative is I call the role something else and remove executives entirely.

To be brutally honest, if the admins really don't like the fact that I want to have control over who has unrestricted access and owner level delegation to this server, start a vote off.

And to expand on my last post (Don't wanna edit for transparency purposes).

A server cannot function if the senior staff are fucked around with every 3 months on what is nothing more than a popularity contest. It causes massive amounts of administrative overhead for me and the team at ATLAS to re-jig peoples access around and means you lose any semblance of stability.

If you don't like who is being appointed to the role, then you can bring it up with me, but the entire point as I've said of an executive member of staff is to do the work that I would otherwise be doing, and that's how the role was historically managed before Seth's ownership, and what I feel is the more sane way to be managing it.

@Luke#3826 I think a lot of what happened over the last year stalled if not took the server backwards because people didn't feel they could trust Seth, instead of doing what the community should have done (Like having a conversation with him or voting him out) they decided to add extra beurocracy which frankly is overkill for what we're doing here.

Executives do the jobs that I can't / don't want to be doing myself, that's what Mark used them for when he originally set the server up, and that's how I see it appropriate to run things...

Quote

@Luke#3829 Seems to have worked well so far. No exec has been voted out aside from the ESL named Wize, who was inactive anyway. They've only resigned.

But it hasn't... We've got a shitely low player base where we max 20 players in a 24 hour window, and the exec's are scared to do their fucking jobs because they don't want to lose the next popularity contest and get voted out... It's just not sustainable to have the entire senior staff team re-hired every 3 months because they lose a popular vote which has absolutely fuck all to do with their actual skill set.

Quote

@Luke#3829 Get a proper panel and make it easier for yourself then?

It's not even about the panel... It's about getting documents signed to grant individuals access to ATLAS resources where they can work with our team, things like introductions and getting them up to speed with how things work and how things have been ran, and getting them pointed in the direction we want to be going in. It's a MASSIVE amount of admin and wasted effort just because people want to go on a little power trip every 3 months and potentially re-hire the entire servers senior staff.

Quote

@Luke#3829 So what if you just appoint a good buddy of yours to the role? Then what?

Then either take it up with me, vote me off, or find somewhere else to play...

Quote

@Luke#3829 Sane to you because you weren't around nor active enough to see the consequences of having things done your way be. This wasn't a system that was just introduced by Seth on a whim. We all voted this in and thought it was a better idea than having random ass appointments.

I've observed the server during most of Seth's leadership, and the community bullied him into doing what they wanted him to, despite much of it being to the overall detriment of the server. We went from AVERAGING 20-30 players constantly when he took over to now peaking at 15-20 players in the holidays... I'm quite confident enough shit was done that actually is doing more damage than good and this is one of them. You're not voting people in because you think they're good, you're voting them in because you like them... That's the issue I have with this.

I've at no point said I was going to remove applications or anything like that, but I've said I'm no longer going to be doing blind voting for people to hold one of the most senior ranks on this server and the responsibilities that come with it.

Quote

@wild1145#3830 You're not voting people in because you think they're good, you're voting them in because you like them... That's the issue I have with this.

Are your plans to remove our current executives, since we voted for them because we liked them? Who are you specifically targeting when you say we voted in our friends and not the most qualified people. I would appreciate specific names.

Can you give an example of someone who has done their executive job properly and was voted out? I had a big hand in revamping the entire executive policy and the way we elected them. Since "smartnt" left, I would pretty much say we've had successful executives.

I do not believe the executives are scared to do their jobs. There's simply no tasks to be accomplished because we have 10 players on. You cannot expect major changes out of anyone but Fionn realistically, which under me did make positive and well received changes.

@zeseryu#3832 I'm making a general statement, but can give you a example which is not executive related (But did make me think of this).

James was appointed admin in around 2 weeks from playing on the server, and I've known James for a number of years. All it took for him to be an admin was to get friendly with enough staff here and have a laugh with them. I'm certainly not saying he isn't qualified, otherwise I'd have objected to him being an admin, but the fact someone can effectively social engineer the entire server into voting for them after less than 2 weeks of being a player, is the problem I have here.

I also don't feel as I've said before, that it's an effective way to run the server if the community want to tie my hands behind my back. I made it clear when I applied for owner and when I took over that I would be guided by the community, not ruled by it like Seth was. We have an ownership policy for occasions where the community and staff feel I am being negligent and that's the only thing I feel I should be being governed by. The rest of this server I should be able to adjust and work with as I see fit to move it into the direction I want it to go.

To answer your question directly, no, I have no current intentions to remove anyone at the current time, I want to enable them to do their jobs effectively and without fear or being removed because they tread on some toes in doing their jobs / annoy people. If people don't feel they are being effective or I don't feel they are being effective, then I'll look to replace them or remove the executive position entirely.

Quote

@Luke#3833 Have you considered the fact that we are a server from a game that is declining, and that the advertisement team while doing their job (as evidenced in their activity log) it's much more difficult given a lack of budget (Seth refused to give assistance from what I could gather), as well as this they have real lives. If you're unable to see this then the community should be making the decision as the community is much more likely to know personal circumstance with each executive, no?

Minecraft has rocketed again in popularity over the last 18 months... And yet we're nearly empty for the vast majority of the day... The game is certainly not declining in popularity as has been proven by a lot of the larger streamers getting into it and servers being very busy and popular, but yet we remain quiet, but again that's not anything to do with this, it's an example of why I feel re-hiring senior staff every 3 months so the community can have it's 5 min power trip.

Quote

@Luke#3833 I'm sorry, why does the executive in charge of designing shit need access to all of ATLAS' things? Why does any of the execs need access to all of ATLAS' things to be completely honest? Just give a panel or some shit and let them do with that - none of the execs aside from the security officer at most should need access to anything more than that?

It was the entire selling point of me being appointed an owner to this server, to enable the servers senior staff to reach-back to expertise we have within ATLAS, given I own ATLAS, and bought TF into being an ATLAS project. Was on my ownership application and is something I have been very keen to push so we can use that knowledge we already have.

Quote

@Luke#3833 Brilliant mentality. Not childlike at all.

I can't have my hands tied behind my back because the server are scared I might do something wrong and still be expected to run this server in a sane and sustainable way. It doesn't work. If you want the community to own every decision then people really shouldn't have voted me in because I was very public about the fact I would not be governed by this community at every decision.

Quote

@Luke#3833 Yes but that's not relevant to what I'm saying. Afaik Seth didn't even get involved with the decision. The EAO at the time proposed a system to hold executives accountable and everyone else agreed. That's got nothing to do with 'bullying'

And I'm not saying executives should not be held to account. There is still a requirement to post activity logs and are held accountable to me, and I am ultimately held accountable to you and this community. It's in my interest to appoint people that are right for the role and who will do their jobs so this server grows and the community don't vote me out... This just means the Executives can get on and do what I need them to do and I can be worrying about the server liking / disliking me.

Quote

@Luke#3833 You're forgetting that people grow up and, as said before, Minecraft is declining as a game. In typing this I'm not even sure if your point here as it's got nothing to do with the fact that the community decided to make this a policy, not Seth?

But that is exactly my point, this server is not a democracy, it's a Minecraft server. You can't have the community decide every decision, if you want that then to be honest, I wish you luck because I can't see it working, and it's not something I'll be enabling as an owner of this server... If people here won't let me be an owner, then there's not a lot I can do.

Quote

@Luke#3833 Well, we know you have friends in the admin team. I've actually seen a few reinstate conveniently in recent weeks. How do we know you're not just going to appoint them in random places and, when we confront you, you just spout this 'Don't like it? Leave.' bullshit?

There have been a lot of reinstatements, though actually I think Fyrsta is the only former admin I'm actually friends with who has re-instated who hasn't even been successful as he went inactive again... Note I haven't gotten involved in that application or other for the most part.

Also note that I pushed for the ownership policy to be changed, because before I made this post, I (As the Forums owner / manager) had to approve my own vote-off before it would go to the community, something I thought was stupid but ultimately is something I could have just left because nobody else noticed. Would have meant there was no way to remove me even if the entire rest of the exec team / senior admins wanted me to.

I'm doing the best I can for the server, and changes like this allow things to be more stable and ultimately I hope will encourage people to better do their jobs.

While I believe that the owner has the final say in everything, however, I don't think completely removing the ability for the community to vote is a good idea.

@zekurt#3836 Sounds great on paper, but given we don't have a copy of the old forums and the proboards one is even older, it's a lot of work to identify what was introduced by means of an owner / exec making the decision, or a community vote.

Also, again as I've said from the start, TF is not a democracy. I am running things how I feel is best for the servers future and if people don't like that, there is an ownership policy with a procedure to remove me if the community feel I am being negligent.

@simplynick#3837 The issue comes in some of the executive roles, for example the odd's are the community as a whole aren't going to be able to sensibly vote in a new lead developer in a meaningful way because they won't have visibility in to the conversations that happen around the servers development.

For the most part I would still expect there to be an application open to the general public to comment on and to ultimately inform my decision, but at the same time there will always be certain roles where that just doesn't make sense... Not because I don't value the community input, but because I don't think the community can make that informed decision without it turning into a flat out popularity contest.

Quote

@zekurt#3840 There's no merit behind the idea that appointed executives are more effective. Marks appointed executives were consistently incompetent, and I know that because I was there. Mark appointed me as Executive Security Officer; was I the most qualified? Absolutely not.

I think I'd rather hedge my bets on reviewing suitable candidates and appointing someone who at least on paper is best fitted for the job rather than leave it to a blind popularity vote... Which has been my entire point here... I can't speak for Mark's appointments, and these things will never be perfect but I'm here to do what I personally think is best for the server, and that is what I see in this change.

Quote

@zekurt#3840 The single most ineffective and corrupt executive, Infamas, was appointed. Executive inaction and corruption peaked here; there was no incentive for him to do anything he didn't want to do

This is always going to be the case though, it's the nature of running a server like this and not just paying your staff... I have yet to see any evidence that voting people in makes them somehow more inclined to do the job they're voted in for? Just means they have to lie when asked more...

Quote

@zekurt#3840 because there were no checks or balances, outside the owner. The owner was incapable of enforcing the checks and balances the server needed, and as a result the server stagnated for the better part of a year.

That may well have been how things have ran historically, but I've already explained here how I intend that to be addressed.

Quote

@zekurt#3840 The policy was changed to allow community oversight and voting, which lead to objectively more effective executives.

I've yet to see any actual evidence of that... From what I've observed since I've taken over it has made some executives nervous to make sweeping changes that could cause community upset (Though being overall to the servers advantage) because they don't want to lose their ranks...

Quote

@zekurt#3840 With that in mind, changes to policy should not be based on the notion that we're passed such issues, or that we've entered a golden age.

It has not been.

Quote

@zekurt#3840 These changes were needed in the first place because people didn't think it was possible under their own circumstances, and with respect, I don't see a smoking gun that says you're definitely not going to favor appointed executives over the community, or inherently more effective at judging character and merit.

If I'm trusting someone with my delegated authority, it should ultimately be my decision who that individual is, because they're doing a role I've specifically asked them to do, and with the full power in that role as if they were me. Take Fionn and the exec admin officer role, he has the same level of power as I do in terms of admin management, there are no "Oh I need to check with Ryan" type things, he has full unrestricted authority to carry out the role of Executive Admin officer as if he were me, and I trust him to do that, but I do need to be able to trust him to do that, and to do that in the same way in which I would if it were me making that appointment, which is the point.

Quote

@zekurt#3840 Regardless, policy should never be based on the best case scenario, but adapted based on the worst.

I think we have a lot of policies very much like that, and while that can be effective in some places, it ultimately means you have a load of bureaucracy that for a minecraft server we shouldn't have in the first place. If you don't trust the servers owner to do their job properly, then either in the case of TF, remove them, or on any other server, find another server to play on...

Quote

@zekurt#3840 In regards to voteoffs, there's nothing that backs up the argument of executives afraid of acting due to the prospect of being voted off. In quite clear contrast, the only people who really have been voted off or have had it threatened were people who were ineffective or just didn't do their job.

I've seen it first hand since taking over, and while I'm not naming names, it was a key reason I made this change. The community should never be in a position to strong-arm the servers executive / ownership into doing what they want at the risk of being removed. Now for me that comes with the territory of having the ownership policy that we do but it shouldn't be the case for anyone else on this server.

Quote

@zekurt#3840 There are a plethora of reasons to point towards current community stagnation, but executives having being voted in is not one of them.

I disagree as I've said and explained previously.

Quote

@zekurt#3840 This server severely lacks people who are capable and qualified of doing the work it needs.

If you would like to elaborate where you feel there are missing resources then that would be great. I'm doing the best I personally can to try to keep the lights on and grow the server, and am looking to push more of the day-to-day responsibilities for things like advertising and player engagement to the exec's like they should be doing. But if there are gaps that I've just overlooked please do say.

Quote

@zekurt#3840 When given an option of trash to pick from, the server will vote in trash, and you will appoint trash.

Not really disagreeing, if there's a limited candidate pool it will always be an issue, but I'd rather be in a position where that's my problem and my problem out of choice rather than forced upon me which the old version of this policy did.

Good luck voting off any executive who was appointed by the owner, when now note offs are merely at the owner's discretion. Good luck also removing the owner, when the executives who are to make this choice, were instated by the the person who needs to be removed (owner) per the new policies.

Textbook corruption?

Can't wait till random atlas employee number 12 is a new executive.

@Miwojedk#3850 I haven't changed any appointments and for the record, up until I made the change today to the ownership policy (Which I suggested) I could already block my own vote-off... At the end of the day when you own the server there will always be ways of blocking a vote-off, not to mention a vote-off was always intended as a last resort because of the fact everything in theory is lost when you do that in the first place...

Again if people REALLY don't like what I'm doing here, the current exec's are the same as they were before I made this change (And likely will be for some time hopefully) so feel free to start the vote-off, but this is all in the way I said I would be running TF from day 0...