Some News and Plans

[Demonic]

Not even you? (runs into the kitchen to get mum)

LOL that really actually made me chuckle :P

[mtine]

if I ban no one can.

Not even you? (runs into the kitchen to get mum)

[Oranje]

...something that even wark and i can agree on, even if hes a flamboyant homosexual
you need to get rid of that shit....

Y roxxkat desperately attempting to become a personality?

[Demonic]

Way to ignore the point I made right after. For a retarded staff member (and from what we, the TW population have seen, is the majority), voicing your opinion more often than not can be made out to be harassing/insulting staff members. If I call you an idiot, you might not be a total power-tripping fgt and just ignore it, but the next guy in line (24 is the common example) can take it as such and make it his personal vendetta to get said player banned.

Basically, you're giving staff the option of being controlling to a stupid level. If I throw a couple jokes at Demonic, for example, and one of them happens to be her (or his?) soft spot, and (s)he makes it out to get me banned, guess what, I'm banned. Demonic can easily say: "it's either he's banned, or I don't keep helping the zone". Who are you going to choose? Don't give me any crap, you'll choose Demonic and sweep that player under the rug.

Stupid rule is stupid. Too vague, too subjective, and gives too much power to potential idiots, and that's as lightly as I can put it.

Thing is river if I decide to ban, there is not a case of choosing who, as their is sod all anyone on staff can do about it even if they do disagree. That's fine, as I hate banning people anyway, so chances are I would normally just pm a player with stfu and don't be an idiot, and have a laugh and joke about it. However, not everyone is like that so by sharing a few more powers like this one I am allowing a more consensus on things then just one person deciding, I guess I am trying to look beyond me as bang op and have a stable structure that can allow a more reasoned approach. I appreciate you probably just used me as an example and could have inserted any staffer into that statement, but the thing is the bang op is what holds all that banning side together. To put it into context, if a smod bans I can overrule, if a sysop bans I can overrule, if I ban no one can.

[Shaddowknight]

Related thought: a screen overlay that includes many helpful default keys (that can be turned off easily via the bot, or perhaps even pubchat).

Esc: Menu F1: ? F2: Player List Pgup/Pgdown: Move "Tick" F7: Attach
And possibly to the right of the msg area: ' Teamchat / Send PM to Ticked Player :: Reply to last PM

Something along those lines.

:tw-welcomebot:!quickhelp

Already exists, it's also going to be reworked with the other objons already.

[roxxkatt]

You should really delete that shitty rule, it is basically left wide open for a random mod to get revenge on a player for calling him out for being retarded.

this is something that even wark and i can agree on, even if hes a flamboyant homosexual
you need to get rid of that shit

The main concern on this topic is that at some times, during "dead hours", when there are only around 5vs5 people playing, pub can not sacrifice enough players to hunt LevTerrs, therefore the point that it is ruining the basing is legit and a compromise, that could be achieved with mutliple solutions, needs to be found.

this is actually quite wise, and would be an excellent solution

[qan]

Related thought: a screen overlay that includes many helpful default keys (that can be turned off easily via the bot, or perhaps even pubchat).

Esc: Menu F1: ? F2: Player List Pgup/Pgdown: Move "Tick" F7: Attach
And possibly to the right of the msg area: ' Teamchat / Send PM to Ticked Player :: Reply to last PM

Something along those lines.

[Shaddowknight]

Perhaps limiting this ability to a few SMODS would be preferable, as it's generally disliked. Having even two or three people to do this in addition to Demonic should still be suffice, but limiting it to SMODs the players trust to make proper decisions (I'd like to hope they think some of us are capable of such) would solve much of the issues with this rule.

It doesn't solve the issue of FUTURE staffers though... I agree with the policy's intent, but the way the change was communicated was obviously not so great in hindsight.

[Riverside]

Voicing your opinion and harrassing/insulting staff members are two different things.

Way to ignore the point I made right after. For a retarded staff member (and from what we, the TW population have seen, is the majority), voicing your opinion more often than not can be made out to be harassing/insulting staff members. If I call you an idiot, you might not be a total power-tripping fgt and just ignore it, but the next guy in line (24 is the common example) can take it as such and make it his personal vendetta to get said player banned.

Basically, you're giving staff the option of being controlling to a stupid level. If I throw a couple jokes at Demonic, for example, and one of them happens to be her (or his?) soft spot, and (s)he makes it out to get me banned, guess what, I'm banned. Demonic can easily say: "it's either he's banned, or I don't keep helping the zone". Who are you going to choose? Don't give me any crap, you'll choose Demonic and sweep that player under the rug.

Stupid rule is stupid. Too vague, too subjective, and gives too much power to potential idiots, and that's as lightly as I can put it.

[zidane]

Concerning the new rule, a lot of staffers are saying it won't happen unless it's an "extreme" situation or as fis said "only a couple times a year." I think that's probably too many times a year unless the rule is expanded on and at least specifies what harassment would be in this case. I feel like this rule should be named the don't bully 24 rule, i can picture him abusing this within a few weeks. just the other day the goof warned someone for making fun of him (his claim was that the person got on an alias to make fun of him and he ignored the player on his main name)...either way he's a goof and this rule is stupid as hell

[fiS]

1) LOL potentially banning people for vs'ing staff members? that's gotta be the most retarded thing ever. y can't we vs da gov!??! freedom of speech!!!

Voicing your opinion and harrassing/insulting staff members are two different things.

[Riverside]

two things i got out this thread:
1) LOL potentially banning people for vs'ing staff members? that's gotta be the most retarded thing ever. y can't we vs da gov!??! freedom of speech!!!
Seriously though, so stupid. Just because the current person in power is rational for the first time in I don't know how long, it doesn't mean the next one will be.
2) And most importantly... humid not being staff anymore means he's not TWL OP anymore? TWL back from da dead? hudumb no more?

[kthx]

Also, since you want to get this steam greenlight thing rolling, another thing to mention is that pub is dead while you host distension, and new players are going to be entering this game and our zone for the first time to a dead arena, without and knowledge of how to go to distension. Are the same people who are whining about the "old TWL veterans who are so good that it would make the new people quit" going to also try to push new players to go to distension, and fight against level 3000 terrs with magic capes and shit as a level 1 warbird? Typical shitty decision.

[Crescent Seal]

Hence, even if you would log in and shit on staff, I don't think that you'll get banned.

does this mean i can log on and take a shit on staff without getting banned...basically only part i read of that essay

[kthx]

This is what I am talking about Demonic, that oooOooOO faggot is the one who abused his powers to ban/silence me a few months back, and he is next in line, someone who can set new rules in the zone. He "harassed" me for several weeks before giving up due to my obvious superiority. This is the next in line to have free reign to follow rules how he sees fit. That is why rules have to be fully explained, not left open to interpretation. YOU demonic, might be ok as the one who makes the final decision but like you said you can't do this forever. What happens when you leave and the next person decides to use it as a way to exact revenge on players for random shit talking. Not only should this rule either be fully removed, or have it fully explained as to what constitutes harassment, but all rules should have to go through a player committee of older players to make sure that some random shitty bang op in the future (ooooOooOo) can't just add rules on a whim and rule the zone with an iron fist. Pretty sure you have to see the obvious logic in this argument.