Posts by GeekGuy432

Vouch, would be great.

Object. Looks like the sort of appeal I would see in S&D and for such a serious breach of the rules, I'd expect more.

I think it used to be the case (between the old system and now) that seniors could make a "suspension request" but I can't find that now. At the moment, I'm not sure whether a senior is permitted to remove someone who is in the act of going rogue and needs to be removed - if that is right then I think that should be changed. From what I've seen, the executives are very quick to take action and very effective, but I don't expect them to be available within a minute, which may be necessary if someone is actively and maliciously abusing admin commands.

So I would support allowing seniors to remove (perhaps pending investigation by execs) for breaches of rules in category 4 (indefinite suspensions) of the staff conduct policy where it cannot wait.

Welcome back! Good to see you around again.

Vouch

I don't think this is the thread we vote on? I might be mistaken though.

Vouch

Vouch, I think it's a good idea: people will still be able to make these posts as much as they like, and those who aren't a fan won't have to look at them. Seems like a compromise that works for all.

Vouch. I think the time you have been banned is sufficient given the offence.

Object since, while I wasn't able to read the outburst, you have managed to get yourself forum banned even while the appeal was, at the time, going OK for you.

An excellent job, just looked on mobile and it looks good.

I'm neutral but interested in how much development effort would be needed. Is it a rewrite of most of TFM? Half of it? A quarter? I can't really provide much insight as I don't know how much effort is needed.

I'd be prepared to vouch. I would emphasise that you will be very quickly caught and banned again if you try this nonsense in the future. I'm not enormously convinced by the suggestion it was an accident but as long as you don't do it again we are OK.

Vouch. Please take care not to let things spiral again.

I vouch after a lot of thought (as outlined in the final paragraph).

I do share some of the concerns others raised. However, I do agree that you care a great deal about the server and that you have shown real commitment.

So over the last few days I have not responded because I was struggling to decide whether to go neutral or vouch. Historically we have been told that if we are "neutral leaning towards X' then vote X. This is how I feel. As such, I think that the appropriate vote is clear.

Were you banned before or after this thread: https://forum.totalfreedom.me/…definitely-banned-players

Object. I'm sorry but I really don't see a big problem. People seem to often put things in the wrong board and it isn't the end of the world. I'm not sure it is obvious that they are a troll either.

I would encourage hammelhopfan to take care to put those sorts of posts in spam and drama. I don't think any formal action needs to be taken.

I am against proposal 1 as I don't think it is necessary and ultimately doesn't resolve the problem - the ownership policy would not require future owners (which by the way I don't think we'll see any time soon) to elect executives. I trust Wild to appoint executives especially considering, in my mind, the role of the executives is to do the stuff Wild would otherwise have to do.

Proposal 2 is problematic to me because I don't want to see a single admin (or even a small group of admins) who have taken exception to something Wild has done attempting to replace Wild - that just seems like a problem waiting to happen. At an push I might consider allowing a supermajority of senior admins (not sure the exact number) to begin a vote-off in lieu of the unanimous agreement of executives - but I'm not too happy with this either.

Ultimately I think the ownership policy is not designed to be easy to activate. It is not supposed to be an easy thing to do. It is not supposed to be activated every time something unpopular happens. It is there for an exceptional circumstance that would cause most servers to cease to exist. I am concerned that if either suggestion goes through in full, we could see attempts to initiate the ownership policy for matters that don't fall under the scenarios.

Object. If this change was made, it would be very easy (and I know because I used to do it) to spam commands for very little purpose other than to be a pest. I think Darth has a good method though, especially for those who don't appear to be spamming commands to cause trouble.

Vouch

I would be in favour of a move away from first past the post. I think having a runoff with the top two from the first round of voting would be easiest to implement on the forum. Is it still needed with the move to appointed execs though?