Posts by wild1145

Taken from https://forum.totalfreedom.me/…-town-hall-thingy-results

Add the ability for people to create a kit using the /kit command.

I'm unsure if technically possible, but figure it's worth a discussion.

Taken From: https://forum.totalfreedom.me/…-town-hall-thingy-results

Suggestion to add enhancements to TFGuilds such as the ability to ally with guilds, or declare war on a guild.

Jira Ticket: https://totalfreedom.atlassian.net/browse/FS-174

I've increased the priority to high, so it should get picked up hopefully in the not too distant future.

This should now be addressed under the revised community guidelines. If it's not feel free to raise it with me and we can re-open this for further discussion.

This should now be addressed as part of the revised community guidelines which are overarching for the forums as well. If it's not let me know and we can re-open this for further conversation.

This should now be addressed into the overarching new community guidelines. If it's not let me know and I'll re-open this for conversation.

I will say that if Steven decides to approve this suggestion, my only stipulation (Beyond my views already expressed on this in dev channels that we shouldn't even need to do this and that this is reasonably important) is that the data is archived for future access, which shouldn't be an issue but is the only real requirement I have if the decision is to purge the data from the server and re-set from clean go.

So I've pulled some data again as part of re-visiting this and considering if it's something we would want to roll out as standard, and given the fact we rarely have issues with CPU Utilization or load, I'm not sure this is actually worth going another 2 or 3 forks down-stream for...

These are again both over the last 35 days so give a decent bit of visibility.

As per my comments on https://forum.totalfreedom.me/…gamemode-ownership-update this thread is no longer directly relevant any more, however a lot of the content is still unfortunately the state of reality and I'd still encourage people to take note of my comments in the original thread here.

For reference, these new guidelines are now enforced across the network and it's associated platforms. Other threads and rules will be updated accordingly in due course.

The only thing I will say (From playing with MultiMC Today) that the native launcher does better, is handling multiple version instances within the same actual "Instance". I quite like being able to hop between 1.16.5 and 1.17.1 with the same settings and options, but MultiMC I have to have two profiles which aren't then in sync which annoys me. The answer seems to be to make a template, but I also don't really like that as it breaks other good native functionality of MultiMC like launching FTB / Tekkit / Other non-vanilla versions / variants of the game.

As per https://forum.totalfreedom.me/d/2255-anarchy-gamemode-update the Anarchy Server concept has been de-scoped from our current plans. There is no current desire or plans for us to re-visit this position with the current state of decline of the network as a whole and as I've stated a number of times an anarchy server will not directly grow the Freedom server, which has been the major pain point. Until we have a reasonable active player base on the Freedom game mode, I'm not planning on re-visiting the Anarchy game-mode idea.

↩ @'Ryan' This has now been fixed.

Quote

↩  FromTimeToTime ryan, as i understand it we are still easing towards closure of the minecraft game servers.

Not quite, at the moment the desire very much is that we won't look to close the network down in terms of the game servers, the original announcement was not a postponement per say, but a shelving of the idea with the expectation of re-visiting at a later date.

Quote

↩  FromTimeToTime we have a re-evaluation planned around christmas time. in the worst case, might we expect freeop to close down, or to find a new host?

The worse case scenario at any given time is that the Freedom game mode is deemed unsustainable / not popular enough to justify continuing and gets canned. With that said with this announcement a lot of the issues I have with the Freedom Gamemode get handed off to Steven to handle (Lack of devs, lack of marketing and such), my concern when I review things with Steven on a regular basis will be around players and retention, how he goes about doing that is very much down to him. And likewise the Christmas date will no longer apply and there will be regular reviews with Steven (And other game mode owners as we bring more online) in the future.

Quote

↩  FromTimeToTime assuming you intend to stop hosting tf, and not everyone trusts the next host, i think that a new policy should give executives the power to oust a host. seeing as you are the new domain/cloudflare controller, that doesn’t and can’t apply to you, but it would for a future host who is initially given your blessing but later acts against our best interests.

If I decide that hosting TF is no longer viable for any reason that isn't "I can't afford to keep running TF, it's too expensive and I can't afford it" then it would almost certainly be for reasons justifying it to be closed down rather than handed over. Steven is probably within his rights to move the Freedom server to other hosting if he really wanted (I'd suggest that would only be a sensible choice if there is a good reason I can't yet see). There's no intention on my part at the moment to consider transitioning the hosting elsewhere and likewise there is no intention to "Stop hosting TF". As I said in my original close-down thread, it was planned for the game servers to close, not the Discord / Forums etc.

Quote

↩  Tizz Question is, how much power is the network owner supposed to have over the single game modes? Can they veto server owners’ decisions?

This is still being worked through, generally speaking a game-mode owner can do as they please within that game-mode, I don't have any intention on getting in the way of the day-to-day operations of the game-modes, my interest will remain at a higher level. Ultimately though I do still own the DNS and oversee everything, so if I believe a game-mode owner is doing something that isn't in the best interest of the community and they can't convince me that what they're doing is genuinely in the best interests of the community, then yes I will ultimately hold the ability to veto their decision, with that said I can't see that being needed a lot, and at least with the Freedom game-mode I would expect if those sorts of situations are coming up, the ownership policy would be being seriously considered long before I end up needing to step in. The only time I intend on getting involved in the running of the game-modes is where the changes / things may impact other aspects to the network as a whole.

↩  Tizz Damn powerpoint diagrams not telling me I'm a dumb ass. Will correct later.

As per https://forum.totalfreedom.me/…gamemode-ownership-update while I'm still not going to be 100% active, I'll be around a bit more going forward. Thanks to Steven and Video for holding down the fort in my absence.

↩  Telesphoreo Was more of the "Instant like". I think I posted it and by the time I had got back to the forums home page it had 2 likes. Just made me laugh.

The fact two of you liked this within 30 seconds of it going live is reassuring that you read it...

Hi Folks,

As part of my returning to being a little bit more active on TF, I'm pleased to announce that we're making some changes to the way the Freedom game-mode will be owned going forward, and by extention how the networks responsibilities is going to run.

I'm pleased to announce that with immediate affect @"StevenNL2000"#2 will be taking on the position of Freedom Game-Mode Owner.

This in short will mean that Steven will take over all of the ownership responsibilities for the Freedom Gamemode, including (Though this is not an exhaustive list) it's updates, policies, executives, community and all other aspects relating to the Freedom game mode within the TF Network.

I will continue in my position as overall owner of the network as a whole, and will continue looking after the forums, website, hubs, bungee and anything else that is across multiple game modes. This change will also free my time up to start working on new game modes that I'm interested in launching into the network and ultimately gives me some time back that I currently really need, while ensuring the community as a whole is left in safe hands.

We've not worked through every possible question and answer that might come up, and exactly where the lines in the sand will be drawn are being worked through, but as a general rule of thumb if it has something to do with the Freedom game mode on the network, that's now Steven's responsibility, if it's something shared or new it's probably with me.

I've also put this into a bit of a diagram as the roles and responsibilities haven't been super clear and I'm hoping this will help answer some questions that you might have:

Please all join me in congratulating Steven on his new role within our community

FAQ:

How does this impact the ownership policy:
The intention is the ownership policy will be slightly re-scoped to only include the Freedom game mode (As it was originally designed for that), this way it gives some teeth back to the policy and empowers the community in the event they feel they need it.

How do executives work?
In short, no different to how it does today, just with Steven having the authority to create / remove / update the Executive positions as defined in the executive policy.

Will Steven continue as Executive Ban Manager?
I understand that for the time being at least Steven will continue on in that role, if he chooses to delegate that in the future I'm sure an announcement will be made.

Who's hosting the servers?
I will continue to be hosting all of the servers and services related to the TF Network as a whole

↩  Luke I'll hold my hands up and say I should have removed Darth earlier than I did. Lykhant I was aware was inactive but had spoke with them and they had agreed to step down gracefully rather than being removed though I didn't chase it and it took quite a lot longer than I had expected.

With that said there is as per your quote there is the ability for the community to vote someone off if the proper process has been followed.

Not saying all of this is perfect but it's better than punishing admins for being inactive in game while completing other commitments.

↩  Tizz They technically don't but as I said I see it generally as a pre-req. Not to mention that if I've asked someone to take on a role that is non-admnistrative to help grow the server, why should they then be punished when they're too busy doing that role to come in game?

Likewise, why should some executives get admin access and some not? Why should we go "Thanks for giving up your time to organise events / engagement things or do some development or help manage our admins, but you know you were too busy doing that, so you can kiss your rank goodbye and don't let the door hit you on the way out".

If folks have an issue with the level of activity with an executive, follow the executive policy and follow the actual rules we have in place. I have seen no reason on this thread so far that I should punish executives for not being active in game when they're completing their other duties as are required by their executive position. That ignores the fact that I'd really like to go back to a time where executives had a prerequisite requirement of being a senior admin first and it actually being a "step-up" from a senior admin, which hasn't been possible for some time.