Posts by GeekGuy432

Vouch but I feel it is important that admins have a command to see inside people's vaults like they do for inventories.

A fantastic idea. Well done and thanks a lot.

Why don't we, as a rule, say that all coreprotect data more than a month old is liable to being deleted? That way there wouldn't need to be a debate every time coreprotect's DB gets massive. I think other servers do this sort of thing.

If we are going to have self-requested indefinite bans (which I have no problem with), I think that there should be a clear policy about how these are issued. At the moment, I can't find any policy that backs them (in fact, I can only see a policy that implicitly forbids them in "Players can only be indefinitely banned for committing one or more offenses from category 1 of the conduct policy" on the indefinite ban template).

I propose the following things:
(1) Making it explicit in the Indefinite ban request template policy details of the following:

• How an individual may go about making a self-request e.g. "make a thread" or "ask an admin"
• Conditions on being unbanned from a self-request e.g. "A person banned under a self-request must fill in an indefinite ban release form to be unbanned, and will not be unbanned for the requested length of the ban, which must be at least X days."
  Also perhaps note that self-requests are granted at the Indefinite Ban Manager's discretion (to deal with people who are abusing the system e.g. attention-seekers). I envisage this being used after people object on a request.

(2) Indefinite ban requests on the user may still be made based on the conduct of the user, irrespective of whether they have self-requested a ban. This stops the possibility (which so far, I have not seen) of people self-requesting a ban to avoid a punishment.

To make it clear, I am only suggesting this because I have seen a slight increase in these types of requests - I am certainly not suggesting that there is attention-seeking or attempts to avoid punishment in these recent requests.

Vouch. I'm inclined to believe that you will follow the rules.

^ I like Steven's idea and I'm glad to hear it's a quick change. Vouch for Steven's adaptation of the idea.

Sad to see another good admin go. Thanks for what you've done for the server. Glad to hear you will be sticking around on the forum.

@redeastwood#15963 It looks like he did. He may have done so inadvertently when deleting the reasons for losing status that don't apply to him.

You need to provide an answer to question 5 ("What current activities have you performed to merit reinstatement?").

Neutral

At the moment, the admin reinstatement template lists, as one of the reasons for losing admin status, "c. I quit or resigned (Yes or No) If Yes, explain why you didn't follow the policy to simply go inactive rather than quit or resign." I propose replacing the second sentence. I think that resignations (particularly the drama-free ones) are perfectly honourable (and I think the no resignations policy was repealed when Mark was owner anyway). With that in mind, I propose replacing the second sentence with "If Yes, please post a link to your resignation thread (if available)." so that anything relevant from the resignation thread can be reviewed. I then think we should change question 5 so people who resign don't have to answer the question about what they have done to warrant reinstatement.

Thank you so much for all your work for the server. I have greatly enjoyed chatting in game with you over the years. It is very sad to see such a competent, pleasant admin resign, but I wish you all the best.

I think it was the right call to make this post and also to issue those apologies. That said, I really appreciate the work you put into the server. It is evident how much you care for the server, and I can see how hard you are working on it - I don't think you are power-hungry.

That's sad news. Best of luck in the future. Thanks for the significant contribution you have made to TF.

Vouch for Luke's reason. While the ban (with or without a request) was probably reasonable, it has been long enough.

(As an aside, I completely agree with Elmon's post below.)

Object, I agree with some of the comments above that there were just too many S&D posts coming up before. Also, I'd rather that people's first view of the forum is not a load of threads from the S&D board.

Sad news. Thanks for everything you've done for the server.

Is there an issue with rulebreaking going on in the hub with no executives on to deal with it? If so, is there a significant problem with opping all seniors (or some of the more active ones) in the hub in the interim until a new system is created in the future? That way no new rank needs to be made above senior.

I would vouch in accordance with the longstanding principle that we tend to unban those who confess to fairly minor offences:
"After you post your appeal, it will be reviewed and you'll normally be unbanned unless it's determined you were lying on your ban appeal or you committed serious offenses that warrant further review."

Neutral. The application looks (very) good but your recent suspension concerns me. Looking at the suspension thread, some of the behaviours displayed and reported there would potentially be problematic in this role. I note though, it being a temporary suspension, this sort of thing will hopefully be easy to correct.

Vouch for lyicx's reason.