G6_ Admin Application

  • You left A LOT out. As you've been building it, I told you "gay sex what the hell is this" you had replied that it was a dirt bank. I then said you should remove it because I don't want it here but you politely refused and sent yourself back to building it again. I had to then bring an admin into the question (I wasn't admin at the time) because you kept building it after I told you "this is private land, please don't build here" and you said "but it's public land!! i gotta build here" so then the admin kept telling you to leave, you then left after the 3rd time the admin told you to.

    My apologies for leaving out a bunch of stuff here, I had honestly forgotten all but the most (in my opinion) important details regarding the incident. I do feel like you're paraphrasing some of what was said here, but nonetheless thank you for clarifying the details that I had missed out on my initial response.

    This is fairly recent and you appear to have changed a bit, but I still would give it time given how absolutely recent this is and how impulsive your behavior was. I need to clarify, I do not care about this incident anymore but I feel it needs to be discussed in an important subject like an admin application.

    Once again, I'd like to point out how clueless I was around the rules around contributing to city build projects. I've never really been much of a builder, and this was (going to be) one of my first actually serious building projects. Given how clueless I was, I mistakenly believed that you were unfairly denying my right to build in what was, in my eyes, an empty plot of land. I don't think it was unreasonable for me to get slightly defensive in that situation, which was further fuelled by my belief that city build projects should be open to all who want to contribute, but you're right and I do agree that my behaviour in that specific situation was impulsive, incorrect and unwarranted.

  • Once again, I'd like to point out how clueless I was around the rules around contributing to city build projects.

    This makes 0 sense, you should be aware of the griefing rules and how I was not allowing you to build on Vesperia, AKA my build.

    I mistakenly believed that you were unfairly denying my right to build in what was

    Once again, you were told by MULTIPLE Admins (now that I remember) that it was not your place to build, in which you once again denied.

    I don't think it was unreasonable for me to get slightly defensive in that situation

    Sure you could've gotten a bit defensive and asked questions, which a player who knows the rules would stop right away, no smite no warnings. But you KNOW the rules and are aware that it is NOW my build, from your new knowledge, though you still kept wanting to build your dirt bank, then get smitten.

    city build projects should be open to all who want to contribute

    What if the city build projects have an owner, which denied you permission from building? That should be reason enough to not build there.

    I don't want this to continue in this thread. If you have any questions or problem with what I said, take it to DMs.


    I'm gonna switch to neutral given this isn't too recent like 2 days ago.

    Admin // Hub Moderator // Master Builder

    Incredibly awesome duck.

    Edited once, last by quack95 (July 20, 2023 at 12:15 AM).

  • Allink A problem I have (I’m actually neutral now i’m not outright objecting depending on this) is currently with your judgement

    Everytime we do something against one of your friends you react with the confused reaction sometimes before saying how you disagree with it in the Discord.

    How do we know you’ll use proper judgement if you don’t agree with the basics? In some recent cases it’s been more than proved a rule is broken yet you seemingly disagree for whatever reason? How do we trust you’ll fulfil your duties if you see this occurring on the server?

    52-CEF3-CF-C4-FF-4798-8469-4-BDCA5-D35247.jpg

  • As Quack has outlined in his response, I don't particularly find reason to continue the discussion around the dirt bank incident on the forums. If Quack indeed thinks that there are things that need tying up, I encourage him to DM me on Discord so we can clear up anything unresolved. My apologies to Quack if my responses have brought up any uncomfortable memories surrounding my behaviour.

    How do we know you’ll use proper judgement if you don’t agree with the basics?

    How do we trust you’ll fulfil your duties if you see this occurring on the server?

    I don't think that there is any way for you to trust that I would fulfil my duties if I saw something that was punishable by a currently-accepted interpretation of a rule/guideline that I don't agree with or that I will exercise proper judgement in those situations, besides for you to trust what I'm about to say. If you don't trust what I say, then I won't blame you for objecting precisely for that reason and/or you not trusting my ability to fulfil my administrative responsibilities. If you do trust what I say, then I will ban players for violations of the currently accepted (interpretations of) guideline(s)/rule(s), even if I disagree with them. In a possible position of administrator I hope to incite change with the currently accepted interpretations of rules that I disagree with and/or currently accepted procedures. I will not be wilfully ignorant if my friends decide to break the guidelines. I would ban them just as any admin would.

    Also, if you don't mind me asking, can you please define what exactly you mean by the "basics"? I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to here, because from what I gather it could be lots of things. I've tried to word my response as best I can operating on my best guess.

    In some recent cases it’s been more than proved a rule is broken yet you seemingly disagree for whatever reason?

    I think this question is in reference to my comments around how uvb joining the server after he was removed from the indefinite ban list by accident while his appeal was still open was considered ban evasion. I think this is a rhetorical question considering that it's true, but if I'm wrong, feel free to correct my categorisation.

  • As Quack has outlined in his response, I don't particularly find reason to continue the discussion around the dirt bank incident on the forums. If Quack indeed thinks that there are things that need tying up, I encourage him to DM me on Discord so we can clear up anything unresolved. My apologies to Quack if my responses have brought up any uncomfortable memories surrounding my behaviour.

    I don't think that there is any way for you to trust that I would fulfil my duties if I saw something that was punishable by a currently-accepted interpretation of a rule/guideline that I don't agree with or that I will exercise proper judgement in those situations, besides for you to trust what I'm about to say. If you don't trust what I say, then I won't blame you for objecting precisely for that reason and/or you not trusting my ability to fulfil my administrative responsibilities. If you do trust what I say, then I will ban players for violations of the currently accepted (interpretations of) guideline(s)/rule(s), even if I disagree with them. In a possible position of administrator I hope to incite change with the currently accepted interpretations of rules that I disagree with and/or currently accepted procedures. I will not be wilfully ignorant if my friends decide to break the guidelines. I would ban them just as any admin would.


    Also, if you don't mind me asking, can you please define what exactly you mean by the "basics"? I'm not entirely sure what you're referring to here, because from what I gather it could be lots of things. I've tried to word my response as best I can operating on my best guess.

    I can't tell if this is just really well written, or something Chat-GPT barfed out.


    Regardless, Object with Video and Quacks reasoning.

    "Dude, my screen is completely purple, I see Barney and I still die" - ExtesyyTV, 2022

  • It appears to be human text

  • vouch. i don't think allink's friend groups and his association with people should determine his trustworthiness because who are we to tell others who their friends can be and cannot? if he's not partaking in such activities then i don't think we should be worried. it's not fair to allink if we were to object because of a potential future where he could partake because then that's just bringing his chances down of being an administrator for days and months to come. if a person's solution is that allink drops his friend group, then said person is retarded.

    allink has proven time and time again that he is a great developer, a team player, a great communicator, one who's knowledgeable in minecraft servers as well as how they work, and an active member of the community. stop being blinded by past events and events that COULD take place, that's not fair to others, and it's a heavy bias.

    as for luke's comment, we can all disagree on things, but when the time comes i believe allink will step up and prove he's trustworthy. if he's trustworthy enough to be allowed to modify the server software, our forks, tfm, etc., i don't understand how the worry of trust doesn't come to there when he could easily pull something in the development area if he wanted.

  • My vote is remaining neutral.

    We all need to take a big step back. I am also guilty of speculating about this in private.

    What are we actually doing here?

    Are we stopping a potential Granite Castle/smartnt situation or are we alienating a good portion of our userbase?

    Is this justified? Why/why not?

    Instead of just outright saying ‘they have too much power’ could we curb the abilities of the admin role so that the situations like GC can’t happen again? Or would restricting their powers be a better idea?

    This is all rhetorical; nobody needs to reply. Please just think about it privately. The last thing we need rn is more division. I’m not asking all of this because I support Allink or I support the rest, my vote is neutral. Let’s all just think a little clearly. The past few days on TF have not been easy and so tensions are high. Let’s all try and defuse.

    I request erin puts this application on hold with Allink’s approval while we calm down and think a bit more clearly.

    52-CEF3-CF-C4-FF-4798-8469-4-BDCA5-D35247.jpg

  • As per above correspondence, I'm going to put this thread on hold until things cool down. Once resumed I'll allow 6 or 7 days of voting again.

    Thanks for your patience.

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

  • This application is now open again as things have cooled down. I'll close the voting one week from today at the latest.

    Thanks for your patience.

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

  • I do not trust him as an admin.

    Regardless, Object with Video and Quacks reasoning.

    Allink is part of a friend group sphere that I believe is gaining too much influence in the community, which could turn problematic very quickly as history has shown time and time again.

    I object. I do not trust you.

    one thing i must ask:

    As Video notes all of these votes (I assume) stem from the Devious group and all because of past problems (i.e. smartnt, granite castle)

    At what point do we realise the problem may not be the individuals but the system itself?

    if a system allows people to gain influence and manipulate and do various despicable stuff then isn’t the system the problem?

    At what point do we also let go of the past? Granite Castle was over a year ago. Smartnt was 3. Some people have privately used Infamas as an example - that happened when I was first even admin.

    52-CEF3-CF-C4-FF-4798-8469-4-BDCA5-D35247.jpg

  • At what point do we also let go of the past?

    Well I'm leaving TF at least temporarily, so not like what I have to say here matters too much, but I think the answer to this question is 'when it stops being relevant'.

    (Below thoughts are related to the thread as a whole, not to my quote of Luke specifically)


    Some will say this response is strawman-ish, and no valid reason to object, which is understandable; There's no concrete evidence of wrongdoing or intent to do wrong, and at the very least there's a sense of "yeah we know this guy, he's decent, let him join!". Others I think would rather err on the side of caution and Object, taking into consideration more than just 'Active? Reliable? Popular?'. Better safe than sorry, particularly when TF is not necessarily desperate for admins (or are we, and I just didn't notice?).

    At what point do we realise the problem may not be the individuals but the system itself?

    I don't think it's the system that's the problem (a system that's been improved since past events, has it not?), I think it's a community being too quick to Vouch or Object without fully considering or providing their reasoning.

    The first 5 votes do not (imo) provide enough or any reasoning. Things like 'reliable', 'would make a good admin', 'has what it takes', 'deserves the promotion' and (oh god, my favorite) 'I suppose' do not (again, imo) constitute valid reasoning. They are at best secondary/concluding reasoning. The Vouches by test and eva are the first to really provide some actual reasoning.

    Video and Quacks objects both provide fairly good reasoning (Quacks gives an example of recent events where Allink acted quite poorly, Videos pointed out the concerning similarities between past Admins + friends, and Allink + friends.

    I think it can be fairly said that the push-back and concern surrounding the Objects is not noticing or taking into account the lack of real reasoning in so many of the Vouches (something that can both strengthen and weaken the concerns around friend groups manipulating votes, depending on how you choose to interpret it).


    In conclusion:
    - Past events most certainly do have relevance to current events, although I think videogamesm12 could (should?) provide more on that

    - Many Vouches and even a couple Objects provide little to no reasoning, and imo should be ignored/chucked out in order to make the vote more fair

    - The community as a whole should probably try to put a little more thought into their Vouch/Object, if only to prevent shit like this thread from happening.


    Thank you for reading my poorly laid out thoughts, and I hope that new and returning voters can learn a little something from this, and put some actual thought with their vote.

    "Dude, my screen is completely purple, I see Barney and I still die" - ExtesyyTV, 2022

  • if a system allows people to gain influence and manipulate and do various despicable stuff then isn’t the system the problem?

    No, because if you are in a position of power (admin) you should be trustworthy enough to not manipulate and do various despicable stuff? Isn't that the whole point of a staff position and why we use our judgement to appoint new staff members?

  • No, because if you are in a position of power (admin) you should be trustworthy enough to not manipulate and do various despicable stuff? Isn't that the whole point of a staff position and why we use our judgement to appoint new staff members?

    but your justification is that he can use his friends as well to do nefarious shit in terms of voting and influence in chat so i’m saying why don’t we make it so groups can’t do that?

    52-CEF3-CF-C4-FF-4798-8469-4-BDCA5-D35247.jpg

    • Official Post

    At what point do we also let go of the past? Granite Castle was over a year ago. Smartnt was 3. Some people have privately used Infamas as an example - that happened when I was first even admin.

    We don't. Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it. Those are all cases of this exact thing happening: someone gaining too much influence. You could even argue that the stuff with UYScutix was an example of it, because he had a whole ass espionage network consisting of even Senior Admins who supported his cause.

    No, because if you are in a position of power (admin) you should be trustworthy enough to not manipulate and do various despicable stuff? Isn't that the whole point of a staff position and why we use our judgement to appoint new staff members?

    but your justification is that he can use his friends as well to do nefarious shit in terms of voting and influence in chat so i’m saying why don’t we make it so groups can’t do that?

    How would we go about this?

  • e don't. Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it. Those are all cases of this exact thing happening: someone gaining too much influence. You could even argue that the stuff with UYScutix was an example of it, because he had a whole ass espionage network consisting of even Senior Admins who supported his cause

    You misunderstood. I don’t mean let go as in forget. I mean let go as in don’t be paranoid at every friend group on TF. Not to ignore what we’ve learned. Please do not quote Churchill at me.

    How

    I believe there’s something in the works so i’m not gonna reveal this publicly but if you’d recall our conversations on teams you’d understand

    52-CEF3-CF-C4-FF-4798-8469-4-BDCA5-D35247.jpg

  • As someone who has run a server before, the developers and highest-ups are really the only people who put any actual legwork into setting up and running a server. Development is a real form of work that goes beyond the "duties" of the "admins" on the server, which really boils down to just sitting around, moderating the very little activity that happens ingame, and filling out a pre-made form every once in a while. In my opinion, developers should be rewarded by having administrative power over the server as well. Thus, I vouch.

  • for those of you all mentioning how allink is associated with people who have attacked totalfreedom, let me all let you know how video and i and probably others were friends with savnith, frequent user, and panther, amongst others such as cyro, while we were all admins, and no one got on our asses and if they did they were false accusations. it's unfair to allink if we keep holding him back because boohoo he's friends with irix and shit like go cry about it somewhere else. developer requires more trust than admin in my opinion as you have access to the server software and the main core plugins itself rather than just commands. sure, he doesn't have access to the actual file manager but without allink trying to support this dump amongst the other developers, this server wouldn't be going anywhere.