Admin Feedback

[Loco]

Give me a bit to get settled and I'll throw out a more or less coherent example that we can use as a point of discussion.

 

[Jake]

A "book of judgments" would be a good idea to implement at the very beginning of next timeline. It's a little late to start one for this timeline, and an off-puttingly heavy workload to go through and painstakingly find them if we wanted to hope for a complete one for timeline 5. At this point, many of the rules around the conflict and how it works are going to change, so it would be a little redundant anyway to do one now for rulings like Ruusan, Serapin etc.

 

[Saul]

As a point, so that the Admins and TT is aware, I intend to organize competitive PVP tournaments (nonlethal, but simply because they serve another purpose, their competitiveness will be derived from prestige in showing combat prowess so early in the timeline - people will be itching for a fight - they might even be lethal but since it's Sith v Sith and Jedi v Jedi, that might be naturally avoided). The purpose of these tournaments is to stress test the new PVP rules. It'd be nice if the FL's supported that effort with additional incentives for victory and penalties for losses. Perhaps a special epithet or ceremonial rank awarded to the victors that only they will be able to carry (and when they die later on, subsequently forever lose) Anyways - the goal is to iron out any kinks for the updated PVP system, set early precedents for combat (which can be linked to in the "precedent thread") and otherwise hopefully make subsequent battles where character death is a threat run smoother.

I imagine there will be some drama involved and Admin rulings dealt down. That's the intent, get it out of the way early on, make sure the rules work.

 

[Loco]

I'm a little short on time, but I'll try to contribute a bit with a few quick examples. Admittedly, these are low hanging fruit and somewhat recent stuff, but like Pheonix said- I don't exactly keep a log book.

On the Ruusan/Serapin note, something that I heard said at one point when some of us were discussing what to many seemed like a frankly bizarre ruling was "If that was Ral vs Prudence instead of Ral vs Sreeya, the battle would have gone to Ral". I don't know that that's a true statement and I don't remember who said it, but I do remember the context we were discussing it in: Ral is a generally neutral party, he's pretty well liked by most who interact with him, and he's a relatively recent community member compared to some of us. Sreeya is a long time active member, despite recent absences, she's former staff, and she's generally liked/feared among the masses. Prudence, in contrast to both, has a sort of shakey reputation (sorry bruh).

So here we have what in many peoples mind was a pretty clear cut thing- the venue on Ruusan's a totally canon location, it was described well enough in the opening post (which was not challenged) and the map being used was readily available for anyone and their mom to see on the Wookie. Neither combatant really had the upper hand in the fight, but Ral had made a beeline for his objective rather than the fight, which was the smart move given the matchup. So then we get what seems to many to be a curveball ruling. It's hard not to look at it, given the history of the players involved, like the Admins had a close call but Sree's argument was favored due to community standing and history rather than merit. Because to many of us it was like saying you didn't know the armaments of the canon ship you were fighting so it's not fair that it used its guns against you. Is it hard to imagine that if Prudence if he were in Sree's position and had thrown a KES style fit over it, would have had his argument viewed in a different light? We've seen Prudii take some really weird hits in siutations that he clearly seemed to have the upper hand in every possible sense, and I have a hard time seeing him having won that battle making Sree's argument.

In this situation I think it would have been avoided or at least the perception of favoritism lessened if there was coherent and transparent explanation of how and why the ruling was made, and if it was given publicly, rather than behind closed doors.


Now, here's some low hanging fruit, I know. Before I open this can of worms I'll say that I hope everyone can keep this discussion entirely within the confines of the subject at hand. Soooo, Mandalorians. We're all thinking it, but nobody has said it yet. There is a very clear bias on both sides, due to the history of this timeline. Much of the Mando player base feels marginalized, or like they are treated with a much heavier hand than many other player bases on the site. On the other side, the Mando player base is seen as being disruptive and unruly troublemakers by much of the staff. I think we saw both sides essentially say as much after the DotR Mandalorian Announcement. We've had a number of incidents over the years that have mostly gone against us (no I don't have specific exampels atm, but the physical impossibility of the genocide comes to mind). So now it's in the back of many Mando players minds, merited or not, that every time they do something that might be contested or turn into a heated discussion, that the Admins are going to automatically view them as being the source of the trouble and that it will affect the ruling. I think it's part of the reason that nothing significant has happened with the Mando's in a good year other than us coasting along (well, other than the rules making us insignificant outside of being Rebel proxies).

Actually, now that I'm typing, I do have a good example- my failed attempt to kick up dust between the two competing Mando factions, Rals Confederacy and Outlanders Underground. Kex and I had a plot plan there that would have hopefully kick started some tension and activity, but when we ambushed Outlander (and he was somewhat justifiably pissed off) and reported the thread, here's what we saw: Both sides made their arguments, a ruling was made based on "rules" that none of us had access to and a tech decision that defied the logic of everyone else looking at it. When the ruling was questioned, the response amounted to "The ruling is final, get on with your lives" and ultimately the result was "Nothing Happens". In the aftermath, people from both sides (mine and Outlanders) shrugged at each other and said "Well, it was a Mando thing, what did we expect?". The reason we felt like that was because there was no transparency or real explanation of the ruling, it just came across as very "Both of you go away and stop causing trouble", and efforts to clarify were met with even more irritation and lack of transparency.

So again, in this case we have a controversial ruling that's not well explained and the result in this case is that both sides felt a bit cheated, and the plot sputtered out and died. PART of this was just horribly out of date rules (BDZ is still illegal, even though the Sith wasted entire sectors this TL), but the rest and the post-battle butthurtness I think it could have been avoided if there was more transparency in the decision making and more willingness to explain things. If something is clearly controversial, the staff should be willing to justify why apples are not oranges in a particular case.




Hopefully all of that was coherent enough to give some specific talking points/examples. What I think most of it is boiling down to is a lack of transparency. If people don't know why you're making a seemingly blatantly wrong ruling because there's no good explanation of why it was made, then the assumption people are left with is unfair bias.

 

[Mr.BossMan]

Ya on the topic of "Favoritism" I do think it plays a role with you Admins. Which let's be honest, its kinda hard not to pick favorites even if you don't want to. I ask my mom all the time, "who's your favorite kid?" She replies "I love you all equally." I laugh as she hands my little sister twenty bucks to go do something.

Now back on topic. I could agree with @Loco On his opening example. What do you Admins think would have changed if it would have been Prudence fighting. Do you think the ruling would of changed? Or hell let's not even say Prudence but instead a new member.

Of course you'll say "no the ruling would of stayed the same." But that's when I throw up a major BS flag.

And favoritism is fine, simply cause its natural and human. And y'all are human, you make friends and you side with them, cause their your friends. Ain't nothing wrong with that. But sometimes you have to bit your lip and just choose what's right to all, and not to you or your buddy.

 

[Green Ranger]

Actually, now that I'm typing, I do have a good example- my failed attempt to kick up dust between the two competing Mando factions, Rals Confederacy and Outlanders Underground. Kex and I had a plot plan there that would have hopefully kick started some tension and activity, but when we ambushed Outlander (and he was somewhat justifiably pissed off) and reported the thread, here's what we saw: Both sides made their arguments, a ruling was made based on "rules" that none of us had access to and a tech decision that defied the logic of everyone else looking at it. When the ruling was questioned, the response amounted to "The ruling is final, get on with your lives" and ultimately the result was "Nothing Happens". In the aftermath, people from both sides (mine and Outlanders) shrugged at each other and said "Well, it was a Mando thing, what did we expect?". The reason we felt like that was because there was no transparency or real explanation of the ruling, it just came across as very "Both of you go away and stop causing trouble", and efforts to clarify were met with even more irritation and lack of transparency.

I had a feeling you'd bring this up. The thing is, though, you seem to be remembering things in a vastly different frame than the OOC seems to indicate. (http://www.thestarwarsrp.com/forum/index.php?threads/outbound-flight-ooc.62369/page-2)

Now, I think the main issue you have with this boils down to the Empion thing, which, I agree, kind of sucks, but there were other factors involved in making that ruling - one of which was that Prudii's ship couldn't actually lay mines. So regardless of your feelings on how I ruled Empion mines out of play, even if he had them he wouldn't have been able to use them. I fully understand resenting the whole 'this was mentioned in an OOC and how were we supposed to know dealio' - that's totally understandable and I can appreciate that. But ultimately even if they'd have been allowed, then Prudii wouldn't have had a ship able to deploy them, so the ruling I made would more or less have had the same end result.

In short, on this particular issue, I feel like you're hung up on something that ultimately didn't have much of a bearing on the way things panned out.

Secondly, I take issue at this suggestion that I (since I handled the bulk of the rulings in the thread) was somehow dismissive of issues or shut down the argument. Read over the OOC again. For five out of those seven pages, and the PM that you sent me, I was suggesting alternatives and working with you guys to keep the thread going. I could easily have ruled the thread was void considering the circumstances of the attack were...poorly planned out, but I didn't, because...well, let's face it, would Outlander have RPed wthe same ambush again with you? As I recall, tensions were incredibly high - just re-read the OOC and you'll see what I mean. So, instead of shutting things down, I instead spent a lot of time trying to find a way to get the thread to move forward and reach a proper, organic conclusion, driven by the participants of the thread.

And yeah, we did end up having to conclude the thread via admin ruling, but I don't think it's fair to pin the blame of that on the staff, and the way you frame your statement suggests that that's not the part you take issue with, but I'll address it anyway. The fact of the matter was that the thread participants had stopped being able to communicate, and we were receiving reports left right and center. For such a short thread with so few participants, that's a clear signal that the thread won't reach a resolution with the participants, and it's a sign that we needed to intervene to come to a conclusion. But I don't see how several pages of trying to make the thread work somehow equates to me being as abrupt or as rude as you seem to be implying here.

And I'm not trying to pin this all on you, Loco, by any means, so please don't misconstrue my reply as an attack on you or anything like that, but I strongly disagree with you on this point that the thread was handled poorly by the staff in terms of behaviour and attitude. Check the commentary in the OOC before I got involved - the thread was falling apart even before a report was lodged.

 

[Saul]

I'm going to agree with @Loco here, insofar as there is an enormous suspicion or resentment of the Mando community that pervades the site, and may well influence decisions made concerning the Mandalorians. However, that perception is maintained by both sides of the coin, and without transparency we cannot say how much of a factor it is in decisions made concerning the Mandalorian community, we can only say that the Mandalorians feel victimized by rulings against them because of this sense. I do believe that, of any bias on this forum, it is the most likely to have affected decisions.

I work in an environment similar to this (we had 2 EEO incidents so far this FY and it only started in September, one of which I was a witness to, and the climate surveys show that my Division continues to be the most toxic in the District). This is a long term problem, and requires people on both sides pursue some Confidence Building Measures (CBM's - sorry I work for the Army so I get a ton of these acronyms) to counteract the bias and prevent it from continuing to influence the attitude of both the staff and Mandalorian community. Really, this should be the focus of the Mandalorians - it's the best way to counteract the community's opinions of the Mandalorians. So far, Mando willingness to work with changes proposed in the NTL is one CBM; it's shown that the community is relatively knee-jerk reactionary to being inclusionary to the Mandalorians, but it's starting to change regardless. Of course, that doesn't mean rolling over every time you're offended, but that's a given.

 

[Loco]

@Green Ranger

That thread had a lot of issues that sort of cloud things, I'll definitel y grant that. I'll even take the hit for that one, since it was Kex and I's idea to bring @Outlander and @Prudence together trying to get them both killed. I should have known that would end poorly :oops:


All in all, I was actually pretty understanding of the Empion mine portion of the ruling even though im still pretty miffed about how poorly the posted rules reflect reality - I knew they were OP going into it, that was why I used them :D

My issues, and the perception that things were being brushed aside or that we were all being forced into an unfavorable position, was the second part of the ruling and subsequent interactions. Basically we were given a tech ruling that seemingly contradicted everything we know about mines up to that point in both the EU and RL and was contrary to the opinions of everyone I had talked to up to that point (including our old resident furry/former tech admin) and we couldn't get an adequate explanation for the break in what we all saw as logic. Then, all of the suggestions for continuing we received basically invalidated the premise of thw battle and the threads leading up to it. So we kind of felt like we were just being pushed into a corner until the thread was either abandoned as untenable or ruled on. That may not have been how you intended it, but that's how it came across, especially in PM.

Then afterwards we chalked it up to "meh, it's probably because we're Mandos- It's not the first time we've gotten weird "we're taking your ball, go home" rulings."

 

[Green Ranger]

Well, I know my word only has as much value as you give it on this, but for me the thought process wasn't 'Oh god mandos ffs', it was more along the lines of 'Oh god prudii and outlander can't decide whose dress is prettiest.' - especially given how heated the OOC was before I got involved. >.>

 

[Elijah Brockway]

I'm going to agree with @Loco here, insofar as there is an enormous suspicion or resentment of the Mando community that pervades the site, and may well influence decisions made concerning the Mandalorians. However, that perception is maintained by both sides of the coin, and without transparency we cannot say how much of a factor it is in decisions made concerning the Mandalorian community, we can only say that the Mandalorians feel victimized by rulings against them because of this sense. I do believe that, of any bias on this forum, it is the most likely to have affected decisions.

I work in an environment similar to this (we had 2 EEO incidents so far this FY and it only started in September, one of which I was a witness to, and the climate surveys show that my Division continues to be the most toxic in the District). This is a long term problem, and requires people on both sides pursue some Confidence Building Measures (CBM's - sorry I work for the Army so I get a ton of these acronyms) to counteract the bias and prevent it from continuing to influence the attitude of both the staff and Mandalorian community. Really, this should be the focus of the Mandalorians - it's the best way to counteract the community's opinions of the Mandalorians. So far, Mando willingness to work with changes proposed in the NTL is one CBM; it's shown that the community is relatively knee-jerk reactionary to being inclusionary to the Mandalorians, but it's starting to change regardless. Of course, that doesn't mean rolling over every time you're offended, but that's a given.

It's probably just the fact that my reading comprehension suffers at 3 AM, but while I agree with most of this post, I disagree with (my interpretation of what you're meaning that's probably wrong) that last part of the post, saying that we're relatively knee-jerk reactionary to people being inclusionary to us, with what we had for changes in the new timeline.

A lot of people took issue with the fact that Mandalorians as a cultural group were seemingly expected to be, primarily, part of the BA. The way it was written seemed almost like the Mandos were being written off in a way - rather than them saying "we're taking away your ball, go home" it was more "here's your ball, but you're only allowed to play in this play pen over here." That, and some of the ideas expressed in the post made various members wary of the possibility of the Mandalorians being pressured by staff to fulfill the story ideas staff had for the Mandos, rather than the players fully getting to choose, for themselves, what the Mandos did. Stuff like that.

The reaction wasn't knee-jerk, it was just people taking issue with something that almost looked like it was built to contain the Mandalorians and ensure that they'd never be a problem, thereby limiting the freedom of the writers to work with them as they might wish, while at the same time trying to ensure that the staff-sanctioned main faction would have an almost immediate base of players for its activity. As it turns out, there were Mando players who didn't like that and non-Mando players who didn't like that, so it wasn't just the Mando group reacting to the idea anyways, and both groups put out various good reasons for their dislike of the idea.

But again, I'm just hoping you didn't mean things the way I took them there and my reading comprehension just suffers at 3 AM.

 

[Saul]

@Elijah Brockway I meant the BA reaction to the announcement was more hostile than the Mando reaction was. That was pointed out by Bac, which is a noteworthy point that the Admin's recognized it wasn't just the Mando's being the speedbump to that concept. A concept which I find fine; Mandalorians - like any other race - can do whatever they want. I have a Hapan Sith and a ex-Mandalorian SBZ - do I care that neither world is in the Sith territory? Nah. Mando's shouldn't care where Mandalore is when they consider making their character - they should pick their preferred faction first and foremost, just like everyone else.

 

[Elijah Brockway]

I was correct, then.

My 3 AM reading comprehension just sucks.

OH WELL I STILL WROTE THAT BIG THING THERE AND I'M LEAVING IT

Mainly because it's 3:30 AM now and I'm grumpy and irritable.

 

[Green Ranger]

I mean, not to steer us off-topic, so I'll say my piece and be done with it, but from where I'm sitting the Mandalorians sales pitch really didn't change all that much - the underlying stuff is still more or less the same.

Like, we went from 'Mandalorians are in the BA, but you can still do whatever,' to 'Mandalore is in the BA, but Mandalorians can still do whatever,' and somehow that seemed to fix everyone's issue with it. Granted, I'm oversimplifying here, but given that basically the central thrust of the announcement is more or less the same, but the sales pitch is slightly different...

I mean, I was of the opinion that people were misinterpreting the original proposal, and given the way things have panned out and the end result, it sorta lends credibility to that theory IMHO. But again, I'm probably oversimplifying it.

/shrug.

 

[Mr.BossMan]

Okay its 3 A.M. here and I'm tired but I have found a problem amongst Admins that I think needs to be addressed. It falls under the category of "Favoritism" and I think its pretty evident amongst our staff. Also I believe this "Favoritism" affects many desicions an Admin would make, adding to the "biased" rulings and/or unfair judgement calls.

Its late and I really need to go to bed....

Okay! So my first piece of evidence in my argument that Admins play favorites, which thus creates unjust rulings or forms "one sidedness or biasedness." Firstly a few quotes from @Brandon Rhea, the Big BossMan and man up stairs, NOTE: The following quotes come from the opening post in the Timeline Announcement about the Think Tank. Oh, and one more NOTE: I will tag some people, most of them I don't really know all that well. Which basically means, I don't mean to be a Jerk about this or target anyone specifically. I'm just calling it like I see it and providing evidence, or what I believe to be evidence.

"All administrators and current faction leaders are part of this process. Now, we are going to begin the process of deciding who the six (6) members who will join us in the think tank."

We will assess each nominee based on what we think they can bring to the table, ensuring that they represent a broad range of people, and what they say in their answers to the following questions:" And then he asked questions which I deleted because they serve no purpose to my argument. But I want you to notice the bold portion of EACH quote.

Okay now the following people are in the Think Tank no matter what. Their either Admins or Faction leaders, or both.

@Brandon Rhea
@Green Ranger
@Padmé
@GABA
@Empress
@Clayton
@Weiss
@Ben
@Nor'baal

The other Think Tankers NOTE: These people applied for the position and the Admins reviewed their applications and ultimately accepted them.

@The Kyzer - Joined SWRP March 12th, 2013
@Sreeya - Joined SWRP May 3th, 2010 (hey I joined May 5th, we both missed the 4th by a day lol)
@Jake - Joined SWRP August 8th, 2008
@Vulpes Joined SWRP July 30th, 2012
@Ral Aran Joined SWRP July 15th, 2014
@TAC Joined SWRP November 20th, 2012
@Black Noise Joined SWRP August 3rd, 2011

Okay now for my point.

All of the Think Tankers are long time members. They have been here and on this site for a long time, they have formulated relationships with the Admins and all that good stuff. Now I will direct you to an above quote by @Brandon Rhea Remember this quote was on the opening post about the Think Tank announcement.

On his second quote that I quoted, read the bold part. "Ensuring that they represent a broad range of people" Well tell me true, does that Think Tank represent a broad range of people? I'd argue no, simply because it does not. Right now I see a bunch of people with a) they all have a lot of post b) a very long time on the Site, all of them have at least a couple years under their belt c) most likely friends (Speculation on my part.)

Now what does this mean? Well the Admin team where the ones who picked our Think Tank. Now would they be biased? Of course they would! Lol. Not a single member of the Think Tank is new, not a single member. So in a way its kinda unfair representation. Which leads me to my point. How does this represent a broad range of people? Because from what I can tell, it doesn't. Instead it repersents the old timers and the people in our Think Tank being friends, and if not friends then at the very least familiar with one another.

So this "Favoritism" bleeds off of our whole Staff, as they where the ones who chose this team. And they chose the people they have roleplayed with and known for years, Instead of new people, with fresh ideas.

Which brings me to Brandons 1st quote remember, read the bolded part, he said they'll choose "(6)" members. Well I'm failing my math class but I count (7) people. Why not just go for the original (6)? Favoritism. Why not make that seventh member new? Favoritism. Why not choose someone, just 1 person, that's been a member for a short amount of time? Favoritism.

This is one big example I have of you Admins playing favorites. And this is a problem, because it leads to biasedness and one-sidedness. Which is unfair to the rest of us.

Also I think its ironic that I predicted 3 of these people to be chosen for the Think Tank. So I can sense it, this favoritism.

There are more examples and I'd post them but right now it is late and I have to wake up in two hours to go to school. So I'm off for now, but I'd love a response from any Admin, and how about y'all DON'T talk with eaxhother before you make a response. Not saying you do, just asking for your individual opinions.

Also just some notes. I'm not meaning to be a dick, I'm just expressing a problem. For those people I tagged don't feel like I'm targeting you.

And for the record, to everyone, I did NOT apply for the Think Tank. The Admins can gurentee this, or clear this up for me. I don't want this to seem like I'm bitchin about not being accepted. Cause I honestly don't care, like I said above, this is a problem and needs to be solved. But if it doesn't get solved then *Shrugs Shoulders* I tried.

 

[Green Ranger]

Er, Kyle (@The Kyzer) is the Rebel FL.

 

[Black Noise]

Okay its 3 A.M. here and I'm tired but I have found a problem amongst Admins that I think needs to be addressed. It falls under the category of "Favoritism" and I think its pretty evident amongst our staff. Also I believe this "Favoritism" affects many desicions an Admin would make, adding to the "biased" rulings and/or unfair judgement calls.

Its late and I really need to go to bed....

Okay! So my first piece of evidence in my argument that Admins play favorites, which thus creates unjust rulings or forms "one sidedness or biasedness." Firstly a few quotes from @Brandon Rhea, the Big BossMan and man up stairs, NOTE: The following quotes come from the opening post in the Timeline Announcement about the Think Tank. Oh, and one more NOTE: I will tag some people, most of them I don't really know all that well. Which basically means, I don't mean to be a Jerk about this or target anyone specifically. I'm just calling it like I see it and providing evidence, or what I believe to be evidence.



Okay now the following people are in the Think Tank no matter what. Their either Admins or Faction leaders, or both.

@Brandon Rhea
@Green Ranger
@Padmé
@GABA
@Empress
@Clayton
@Weiss
@Ben
@Nor'baal

The other Think Tankers NOTE: These people applied for the position and the Admins reviewed their applications and ultimately accepted them.

@The Kyzer - Joined SWRP March 12th, 2013
@Sreeya - Joined SWRP May 3th, 2010 (hey I joined May 5th, we both missed the 4th by a day lol)
@Jake - Joined SWRP August 8th, 2008
@Vulpes Joined SWRP July 30th, 2012
@Ral Aran Joined SWRP July 15th, 2014
@TAC Joined SWRP November 20th, 2012
@Black Noise Joined SWRP August 3rd, 2011

Okay now for my point.

All of the Think Tankers are long time members. They have been here and on this site for a long time, they have formulated relationships with the Admins and all that good stuff. Now I will direct you to an above quote by @Brandon Rhea Remember this quote was on the opening post about the Think Tank announcement.

On his second quote that I quoted, read the bold part. "Ensuring that they represent a broad range of people" Well tell me true, does that Think Tank represent a broad range of people? I'd argue no, simply because it does not. Right now I see a bunch of people with a) they all have a lot of post b) a very long time on the Site, all of them have at least a couple years under their belt c) most likely friends (Speculation on my part.)

Now what does this mean? Well the Admin team where the ones who picked our Think Tank. Now would they be biased? Of course they would! Lol. Not a single member of the Think Tank is new, not a single member. So in a way its kinda unfair representation. Which leads me to my point. How does this represent a broad range of people? Because from what I can tell, it doesn't. Instead it repersents the old timers and the people in our Think Tank being friends, and if not friends then at the very least familiar with one another.

So this "Favoritism" bleeds off of our whole Staff, as they where the ones who chose this team. And they chose the people they have roleplayed with and known for years, Instead of new people, with fresh ideas.

Which brings me to Brandons 1st quote remember, read the bolded part, he said they'll choose "(6)" members. Well I'm failing my math class but I count (7) people. Why not just go for the original (6)? Favoritism. Why not make that seventh member new? Favoritism. Why not choose someone, just 1 person, that's been a member for a short amount of time? Favoritism.

This is one big example I have of you Admins playing favorites. And this is a problem, because it leads to biasedness and one-sidedness. Which is unfair to the rest of us.

Also I think its ironic that I predicted 3 of these people to be chosen for the Think Tank. So I can sense it, this favoritism.

There are more examples and I'd post them but right now it is late and I have to wake up in two hours to go to school. So I'm off for now, but I'd love a response from any Admin, and how about y'all DON'T talk with eaxhother before you make a response. Not saying you do, just asking for your individual opinions.

Also just some notes. I'm not meaning to be a dick, I'm just expressing a problem. For those people I tagged don't feel like I'm targeting you.

And for the record, to everyone, I did NOT apply for the Think Tank. The Admins can gurentee this, or clear this up for me. I don't want this to seem like I'm bitchin about not being accepted. Cause I honestly don't care, like I said above, this is a problem and needs to be solved. But if it doesn't get solved then *Shrugs Shoulders* I tried.

Mate, you really have no grounds to stand on for the argument you're trying to make. What it looks like you're trying to say is that the admins picked the members of the TT based on experienced and friendship. On the first, what the hell, yes experience is a viable factor that should be considered in the choosing of anything. On the second, I actually laughed out loud.

We know the admins, even myself has received run-ins and infractions in by gone days, but we are certainly not the admin's favorite people. If the TT was picked based on Bac's friends, you'd likely be seeing an entirely different lineup.

That's not to say we don't like the admins, it is to say we typically don't hang out.

 

[Jake]

Well, considering I am being addressed in your post, perhaps I shouldnt be the one to respond. The TT members are generally chosen from people who have been around for awhile because the admins are picking them on a very selective basis to build a timeline that could last for years. I feel it is a little asinine to say that somehow reflects admin bias.. Also, perhaps more than anyone in the TT, I have basically 0 interaction with anyone else OOCly.

Re: a point Loco made, I dont see how the issue of the map can actually be brought up in any argument. If it wasnt established in the OP or given to both players by someone relevant to the battle, it shouldn't be used for the spar. Anything else sets s horrifyingly abusable precedent.

 

[Nor'baal]

@Mr.BossMan if the admins selected people based on who they preferred, then by that logic they would pick people?

So - if that is the case, why did the Admins allow a faction leader who was selected by a public election (aka: Me) into the TT?

I hope you can see that your logic here is somewhat flawed.

 

[Green Ranger]

Hell, I can't remember the last time I spoke to BN that didn't involve calling him a pedantic backstabbing asshole.
...
>.>
...
Hi BN!

 

[Marf]

@Mr.BossMan

I think you need to present your posts and arguments more eloquently and professionally. Throwing around slang, abbreviations, exclamations and expletives does not read well and is quite off-putting to other readers. I struggled to read alot of your previous posts because of the slurring, clutter and casual language, so I'd advise structuring them in a way which is more clear, to the point and proper. Just some friendly advice.

---

On to my personal thoughts, I am a rather paranoid person, so it's easy for me to assume negative things that aren't true. However, this a symptom of an illness I have. Naturally, I am very open and honest about my opinions, but by habit, I constantly control that aspect of myself on the site for fear of angering or upsetting somebody. In the past I have been judged very harshly on the public forums and on skype by respected members. These experiences were so awful that I became submissive and nervous and controlled my every written word to make sure it didn't happen again.

I never spoke out or complained to any of the admins because I felt like I was overreacting or that because it was senior, popular members who were involved, that the admins would not do anything about it. I regret that decision and now feel that because these incidents were so long ago, that they are no longer relevant, despite the fact that they still affect me. I interpret things very directly and literally, so I can't read through sarcasm, dry humor or stern nuances. If something sounds disapproving or harsh, that is how I will read it.

While I don't believe that the admins are biased, I do believe that some can behave with an unnecessarily aloof manner. I've never been involved in a major death battle or PvP ruling (thank God) but there have been occasions where I have messaged an admin on skype or sent them a PM just for a chat or light-heartedly commented on one of their posts and I've just been straight-up ignored. That really gets to me, it's worse than written disapproval because you don't even know why they've chosen to ignore you. I had no idea whether they were just busy or if they actually thought that I was a complete idiot and they didn't want anything to do with me.

Importantly though, this is absolutely not only relevant to the administrative team. I have experienced this kind of needlessly closed and aloof behavior with many of the more senior members. It is really not that hard to just have open mind, to chat with someone new or to get to know them or respond in a friendly, relaxed attitude, rather than just being grumpy or overly cynical. You don't need to sacrifice friendliness to be honest. I'm not talking about issues or discussions that require professional attitudes, I'm talking about casual OOC chatter. I once got into a discussion in the Star Wars Saga board and I could not understand for the life of me why the responses were so angry and harsh, I mean for goodness' sake, it's just Star Wars. I was so upset I never got into a debate there again.

Yes, it can be very easy for newer members to assume that the admins or more popular members are biased or mean-spirited, even when they truly aren't, simply because of the aura they give, especially when you know you're a bit different. So being completely honest on the public forum really is a very, very scary thing to do, and this is coming from a person who would usually have no problem expressing herself in public.

Marf out.