Posts by Tizz

I'd say the only relevant thing is the username history, idk if it's easy to cherry-pick it.

Quote from elmon

If I were to pick an ideal ratio arbitrarily, I'd go for something like 1:5. Having more Senior Admins than Admins makes the role redundant IMO

I'm pretty new to all those dynamics but I believe the removal of the telnet rank made the gap between standard and senior admins narrower.

As of now admins are a mixture of new and experienced members while senior admins are just the experienced ones who are willing to guide the others.

Idk what's going on and it's a wasted opportunity to finally have enchy's successor in Silum City

Luke's proposal is pretty detailed and I believe it can work.

It can be implemented either as a variant of the long/indefinite ban request template that is added to the ban policy or as an extra option in the current one. What matters is that it must be immediately clear for the EBM that there's an active ban that requires a speedy confirmation.

Of course, any abuse of the system must be punished according to the staff conduct policy.

Quote from FrutiKitty

Erm ackshewally you cant object on this reinstatement because resignations without drama are to be treated like inactivity notices

i vouch

Quote from wild1145

They did leave in a dramatic way and effectively rage quit. In those circumstances it is not an automatic reinstatement at all.

According to the updated megathread, reinstatements that aren't from indefinite suspensions now require 1-week voting period.

I've re-read it and uh the wording's sometimes not so clear. It doesn't state there's a vote but it doesn't specify there's an automatic approval. I recall there was a suggestion to uniform the different reinstatement processes.

Behold, the first group of this summer!

And some playtimes really make me question if the title is just metaphorical.

Quote from wild1145

while we decide if TF will remain a network or not

I disagree on removing the current network. Where are we supposed to put the plot server when the replacement for the freedom server is deployed? Do we really want to throw away more than a year of planning new stuff to open new opportunitites and make the place less boring for the few still playing? Do I want to go through the hassle to maintain separate server listings after efforts to regain control of the forgotten ones and to keep all of them in sync? I don't.

Quote from hyly

Ban tizz he called me crazy behind my back. He’s dead to me

I need to publicly apologize for my unkind and untrue words.

You aren't crazy.

You're just a little unhinged.

Quote from zekurt

Quote from Tizz

We can simplify the process. What about skipping the whole development branch and opening pull request directly to main? Releases can then be created monthly (if there are changes) or when a critical update is to be deployed.

How would this simplify development? You're just moving the point of failure from dev branch to main branch..

would have been a complete fucking disaster at the companies i worked for kekw

Devs say the process is too complicated. This is the only simplification I can think of. If it's unsafe, then what's the point of complaining?

First world countries usually have aid programs based on economical status.

I'd say let's not rush to decisions we might regret later.

As long as we have at least 2 playable game modes, I don't see why the hub system can't stay.

My only concern is that Ryan is still the only one able to do some stuff network-wise, which makes him a single point of failure.

Quote from Allink

In the next paragraph I will lay out the procedure for getting a change to TFM pushed to the server:

1. You make a branch off the development branch in the TFM repo.
2. You commit your changes to that branch.
3. You open a pull request for the changes to be merged into development.
4. You wait for another developer to review your changes.
5. If necessary, you make the requested changes and then go back to step 4.
6. If your changes are approved, you or another developer merge it into the development branch.
7. The changes on the development branch are tested until they are deemed ready for the main branch.
8. Successful testing on the development branch means that it will be merged into main.
9. A release will be created from the main branch.
10. That release will be put on the server.

We can simplify the process. What about skipping the whole development branch and opening pull request directly to main? Releases can then be created monthly (if there are changes) or when a critical update is to be deployed.

I use my executive powers to veto this request.

Considering how Eva has handled the past events, her activity and her technical background, I vouch.

Vouch and recommend as Executive Lead Cat

Vouch, he's one of the people here I trust most.

This community doesn't exist anymore, I'm writing it off the list.

Quote from wild1145

It'll be down to the admins online, I'd suggest in an ideal world an admin probably should jump on the other server and ban them on both servers but it'll be down to their judgement.

Freedom-02 moment

Quote from zekurt

Perhaps pay your fucking devs?

For not doing what it's asked to do and resigning when there are complaints they're not following the plan? We're stuck on 1.17, have to stop developing TFM and get rid of all-OP model because of them. Kudos to the remaining 2 (iirc) but we're basically stuck on all levels despite a clear plan of action and priorities.

I agree with who says you've become more trustworthy.

You still happen to be overly dramatic and unpredictable at times, flipping your plans.

Quote from JagWire

I did at one point start building a TF museum but I don't think I have that map anymore.

Does it look like /warp TotalFreedom? It has the highlights till Seth's vote off.