Posts by wild1145

  • image to map

    Approved.


    I've raised FS-86 to track progress and for the dev team to investigate viability and setup if it can be used without issue.

  • Our Ownership Policy is Shit

    Quote

    @Miwojedk#5439 It’s frankly quite sad if you actually take these threads so close to heart that you think we’re insulting you. I choose to believe that you don’t, and that you’re simply obfuscating. Feel free to tell me otherwise, but so far I, nor anybody else, have attacked you, nor intended to “insult” or “accuse” you of anything. Saying “this is a blatant corruption issue that should be amended.” is in noway an insult, and the only way you could see it is if you purposefully misconstrue it as such.

    You're making a suggestion, where you literally state that my selecting the executives which could remove me is "Corruption"... I'm not sure how I can't take that personally? Given I've put a lot of time, effort and more recently money into this server since I joined in 2012, it is genuinely upsetting when people actively try to undermine my decisions, and justify it while then twisting my words to suggest that I'm not doing the best I can do here, with quite frankly my hands tied behind my back because the community keep trying to run this server instead of me, and that's something I've made clear from day 1 would not happen.

    Quote

    @Miwojedk#5439 Just because you’re not here doesn’t negate the fact that plenty of people have already made clear that they’d be willing to take up the mantle as owner of the server. I don’t get why you think it’s a valid concern (or point therof) that the owner (not you specifically, I can’t believe I have to make this so clear), would “run with the money to the Bahamas. So yes, this is actually something that would be a nessecity in the future. And no, neither of these proposals would trigger any “drama”, and I can simply point to the past use of the ownership policy.

    The ownership policy historically has only actually ever been invokved during one scenario:

    Quote

    Scenario 3


    The server has gone down due to a lack of funding. This does not include technical errors or temporary measures, but instead a permanent dissolution of the server.

    So would you also suggest if we're basing everything off of past usage, that we remove scenario 1 and 2? It's also important to note that having executives where there are generally very few of them, to be able to control the potential flood gates proved to be exceptionally valuable to the process, else every time someone here goes "Well I don't like you so I'll call you negligible and vote you off" is going to cause utter anarchy, and we both know there are plenty of people in this community that are that petty.

    Quote

    @Miwojedk#5439 “Executives will continue to be put in to place by me, and that's not negotiable.”
    And another thing that is dissapointing is that you admit that you’d simply stick two fingers in each ear if the community has a legit concern instead of trying to mitigate this concern.

    I've already flexed on my original position. The community doesn't run this server, I do. If the community doesn't like that, then at this point maybe the community should be finding other servers to play on, rather than moan that they have no power, because at the end of the day this isn't a democracy.

    Quote

    @Miwojedk#5439 Then perhaps you're not fit to be owner if this is how you're going to take any constructive criticism in this manner. I don't understand how this thread, nor any of my other concerns in other instances display me as being full of myself? I've criticized every past owner, some more than others, but it's all come from me wanting a better server?

    There is nothing constructive about this, that very quickly ended on the last thread, where the OP was in fact (And as I've said before) a knee-jerk reaction to the other thread. I don't think it's wrong to care about the server, or my position on it, especially when I'm the one funding it, and putting considerable amounts of my time into maintaining it and trying to grow it. This in my view has long since gone past genuine criticism and is reaching the point of just attacking the fact that I want to be able to run this server like I've told people I would from day 1, people signed up for that, it's too late to change your minds now.

    This suggestion, as with the last one does nothing but water down an existing policy which took weeks to get community approval, and ultimately goes against it's original inception as I've already stated multiple times.


    I don't mind suggestions, and I don't mind genuine constructive criticism, but this is now reaching the point where enough is enough, and people need to remember that this is a minecraft server, to which I own, and the community is just that, a community. We're not a democracy, and while I have said from the start that I will take the communities views on board, it won't govern what I do.

  • Our Ownership Policy is Shit

    @redeastwood#5441 No, Mark appointed his own executives as he saw fit, and there was no ownership policy during his time as owner, he selected Windows as his successor with no community involvement. The community were only empowered to make suggestions, not mandate change.

  • Our Ownership Policy is Shit

    @Miwojedk#5436 Your post literally (as I explained) makes it very clear that's what you are saying.


    I will take it personally because your telling me that despite being voted in by the staff here, I'm not good enough to be able to do the job I've been appointed to do.


    Read your post and put yourself in my shoes. Let me tell you with posts like these it's a really shit place to be, and shows how a lot of the server don't really care about anyone but themselves.

  • Our Ownership Policy is Shit

    @Ashaz#5432 the council in this example would serve no purpose different to that which executives are intended to hold... We'd be back here in a few weeks arguing how to appoint people to it.


    At the end of the day, I'm the server owner and if I'm going to need to delegate things to others then I need to be able to actually do that. Otherwise I'll find other ways to achieve effectively the same thing which I can assure you would only end up further making this argument a moot point in the first place.

  • Something I've noticed

    This is probably the forum mod's moderating inappropriate posts in the first place... I know that's been happening a lot and people have been getting warned as such... Hopefully it'll be a bit better when we move forums because hopefully notifications might not even fire when you login if the post in question has been deleted.

  • Our Ownership Policy is Shit

    Executives will continue to be put in to place by me, and that's not negotiable. The way it was running before was adding additional complexity and bureaucracy into a process for the sake of bureaucracy. I simply reverted our policies back to a stage where executives could be appointed based on the roles I need people to complete on my behalf.


    I think it's also important that folks actually bother to read the ownership policy, because in reality it doesn't matter what the outcome of this thread is because there is only 2 actual scenarios whereby the executives have any power in the ownership policy in the first place which is:

    In both of those scenarios (Which are the only ways an owner can be removed without me resigning) it really shouldn't make any difference who the executives are, because in scenario 3 I've ran with the donation money to the Bahamas and won't be coming back either way, and likewise in scenario 2... In either of those cases I wouldn't even be here on the server to care about being an owner, and neither would anyone else.


    What this proposal actually does in banning executives from having the triggering vote is that we'll end up with a load more drama and issues when every man and his dog mus-understands the point of the ownership policy, and tries to vote me off because I banned them, suspended them, made a policy change like the executive one people don't like.


    I will also re-iterate, the fact you've used this sentence:

    Quote

    @Miwojedk#5429 Thus, this is a blatant corruption issue that should be amended.

    Is quite frankly as far as I'm concerned, a personal attack on my leadership of this server, because when we wrote this policy which the community agreed and that was discussed at length (Ownership policy for clarity) this wasn't corruption then, so why is my un-doing something that should frankly never have been done in the first place, now corrupt.


    Please, if you're going to actually accuse me of being corrupt, damn well say own it, if not stop making such claims and attacking the way I'm running this server, because it really is I feel quite unfair.

  • Exclude Executives from Owner Vote-Off

    @Miwojedk#5288 It absolutely is, you're trying to make changes to a policy as a reaction to a change I made, that reversed the policy in question to the state whereby the ownership policy was introduced... I've reversed a change not made a new one... So it absolutely is in my view a moot point because we had exactly the same potential situation when this first was discussed, and somehow we all agreed to live with it, so why is it when I make the change to reverse it that's suddenly no longer acceptable...?


    Actually, this post is in direct response to my changing of the executive policy... If you look at the times and some of the earlier responses, that's why this thread is made. So you are absolutely arguing here that my change to reverse a historic decision is suddenly not acceptable.


    All I'm saying here is people need to actually think this through, because this does nothing but undermine my ability to do my job by enabling every man and his dog to vote me off every time I do ANYTHING on this server, which is a really fucking stupid place to be.

  • Exclude Executives from Owner Vote-Off

    @Miwojedk#5287 I'm sorry if I take this personally, but at the end of the day it really is and people either need to own that fact, or they're just kidding themselves... As I've said in my other posts here, this thread is nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction to a change I made to reverse a policy change that happened under Seth, which I thought was wrong. Imagine if this change goes through and every time I make a thread that 1 admin disagrees with, the entire vote off process starts. It would fucking destroy this server, because during that time, there is no owner, I get to just sit here doing absolutely nothing, or be accused of tampering / fucking with the results...


    I take it personally because quite frankly, this entire thread is. The sooner people realise that the better...

  • Exclude Executives from Owner Vote-Off

    @Miwojedk#5283 because the entire argument so far is "Wild could appoint someone to stop him getting removed" which is exactly the way the original policy was introduced and such is a moot point to argue my recent change changes anything in any real way... If I really wanted I could circumvent whatever you do here, or simply decline this suggestion... I'm challenging what I believe to be a weak argument that has no real basis.

  • Exclude Executives from Owner Vote-Off

    @Miwojedk#5281 think you may have mis read. People are defending their decision here on the grounds of "well you'd never do that so it wouldn't affect you we trust you honest" which I'm saying is clearly not the case if that's the argument your making. I have no issue with people being concerned if go rogue, I'd rather they own it than hide behind excuses that's my point. Because ultimately it's a valid risk to consider. If it's actually a risk worth mitigating is an entirely different question and if what is proposed here is an appropriate mitigation is an entirely different question...

  • Ownership Policy Suggestion - OP Voting

    @Miwojedk#5278


    1) Depends how badly you wanna be owner I guess. I nearly did this to prove a point to Seth that allowing voting on every decision is stupid. All it takes is a couple of hours and a password manager.


    2) Depends on the scale of fake accounts I guess. I'm talking 50 plus accounts. That would sway most votes...


    3) Not anymore. Once you have an account the only reason it would be deleted is in line with data protection regulations.


    I'm not saying this is a likely problem but it's one we should be a good answer to imo. There was a lot of discussion around op voting in the first place and we couldn't reach a consensus while also maintaining the requirement for as accurate a genuine vote as is possible, something I think we should still be striving for rather than compromising too heavily.


    To be honest some of this is answered when we go back to the other question I asked here which is "how do we define an OP" because once you know that, this problem could just go away naturally if it would require considerably more time or expenditure

  • Exclude Executives from Owner Vote-Off

    I have objected or voiced concerns because while this sounds good. In reality it means every time I do something that upsets someone they will hold a vote off and the server will stall every time I sneeze.


    If I didn't want to get voted off, I'd remove the ownership policy or that part of it if I'm being brutally honest. That's perfectly within my power technically speaking and while Mark might give the domain to someone else, it'd be a faff either way.


    The reasons it was selected as executives was because they are a high bar of entry, and let me remind you all that at the time the ownership policy was written executives were appointed and not voted... This is no change different now to its original inception.

  • Ownership Policy Suggestion - OP Voting

    @Xen#5262 if you can write up a way we can do it technically then we can consider it. The issue is defining an op in my view.


    Because I used to technically be an op but didn't play in game, so even though I had like 6 years on the server because I wasn't active does that make me less of an op?


    We need to define the criteria for voting. How we are going to find a way to automate the process and get that agreed...