A GrangerPub gameplay disruption log

[faceman]

oh man i missed some critical disruption events.

@DevHC

{$}rohaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa* pushed /dev/humancontrolled down from boxes/ledges below to the tyrant infestation, and chat-laughed hard and smacktalked about it. a group of semi-servertakeoverers, including OVO DA PASCOA, PDG|Nicolas21550, admin support2 and possibly others, voted against the kick vote for this action, the vote failed. *<{Helper Bot not only didn’t affirm the issue, but also specifically denied further kickvotes, saying that a valid reason must be provided; he even played dumb, effectively asserting that there were only some other „dummy” kickvotes; he also provided the following fuckface instruction: „Go to grangerhub.org to toe forums” „And then report there with proof on the player report section”. the group later votekicked /dev/humancontroller out, during which admin support gave a remark: „thats devhc”, and which *<{Helper Bot also didn’t contest.32 that’s a player’s name.

LOL

[DevHC]

@Hero

@asbestos

admins don’t care

I assure you, I care. I wouldn’t be posting right now if I didn’t.

admin-actions speak the truth more than forum posts. ur clanmate doesn’t give a fuck, even supports Desala, and causes the otherwise most prominent GrangerHub developer to turn against the project.

[Ckit]

@DevHC

Fk|Elan reduced /dev/humancontroller’s admin level from 2 to 1.

WRONG!

[DevHC]

@Ckit

@DevHC

Fk|Elan reduced /dev/humancontroller’s admin level from 2 to 1.

WRONG!

how do u know ? u weren’t there, were u ? do the server logs show that such a decrease in admin level did not happen ?

[Menace13]

@DevHC

how do u know ? u weren’t there, were u ? do the server logs show that such a decrease in admin level did not happen ?

Fk|Elan, also known as Fk|Hero, does not have !setlevel on GrangerPub.

[DevHC]

@Menace13

Fk|Elan, also known as Fk|Hero

hmm, post fixed. fucking lies uncovered.

ya know, this may turn out to be a call for a new „GrangerHub forum disruption log” thread.

does not have !setlevel on GrangerPub.

this must mean that he did not have /setlevel at that time, unless u’re trying to lie with safety of repudiability by hiding an unobvious interpretation (ie., „fact: now he does not have /setlevel — unless he’s a dickhead, he will attempt to interpret this by assuming good faith”). so through which admin was i admin-leveled down ?

[MaeJong]

@DevHC

hmm, post fixed.

WRONG! In fact you just broke it.

Active aminz with setlevel: virus, ckit, cron, sparky, shuffle and me

[Menace13]

@DevHC

so through which admin was i admin-leveled down ?

@MaeJong

Active aminz with setlevel: virus, ckit, cron, sparky, shuffle and me

Feel free to ask around. Hero has never had !setlevel on GrangerPub to my knowledge, and at the very least, definitely not in the past few months (not sure if his level ever had access to !setlevel in the past).

[MaeJong]

Only level 9s ever had access to !setlevel on pub and club.

[DevHC]

@MaeJong

@DevHC

hmm, post fixed [by changing the blame from „on Fk|Hero’s clanmate” to „on Fk|Hero himself”].

WRONG! In fact you just broke it.

Active aminz with setlevel: virus, ckit, cron, sparky, shuffle and me

ah, i believe i can piece the puzzle together — GG. the perpetrator is Fk|Hero’s only clanmate with /setlevel permissions: Fk|Ckit ! amirite ?

[Ckit]

Bingo.

[Hendrich]

Yes, of course. All the pieces have fallen together. The pawns lined up for their king. It all makes sense now. Ckit was Old Man Hank the whole time.

And with this knowledge, this means … what, exactly? Ckit and Hero are trying to take over GrangerPub, then the world?

You are free to make whatever claims you desire, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they are true. Without evidence, they are basically opinions presented as a “disruption log”.

If you actually wish to contest the validity of what happened to you, do so by making a report in the appropriate section. I’m sure the admins responsible will be glad to explain their decisions and provide the relevant evidence behind their actions. Not here.

[DevHC]

@Hendrich

this means … what, exactly?

that we now know who r responsible for the upcoming assaults on Granger*.

report in the appropriate section
[…]
Without evidence, they are basically opinions presented as a “disruption log”.

1. u seem to have a PROBLEM.
2. where the shit have u been ? tl;dr ?
3. do u still have the PROBLEM ? if yes, what is it ?

[Hendrich]

@DevHC

do u still have the PROBLEM

Sure. Heres one of them:

@DevHC

we now know who r responsible for the upcoming assaults on Granger*

Do we?

HOWEVER, PREVIOUSLY ON GRANGERHUB:

@DevHC

the only hard evidence is the server logs.

And yet, despite this finding:

@DevHC

i’ve made a great share of reports, and i still somewhat continue to do so, though only in PROPER™* channels, like IRC — this is a protest against the retarded system currently in operation**, and this thread is itself a protest;

*** = WRONG

So you have a PROBLEM with the administration, but you are protesting against it by not actually making a report in the proper category where the server logs can actually be dumped, where admins can discuss with the users and the alleged offenders on what happened or if a case can even be made.

And based on what I can understand of your position, this is bad becase:

@DevHC

unless an act of malice is completely recognized and attributed, players r maximally burdened with an encumbering process of proactively preparing to and reporting cases.

Good. Just as admins are expected to take the initiative to do their job, players are expected to take the initiative to report malicious behaviour. That is, unless if /ignore or /callvotes fail. If admins are not available, then players need to prove malice before we start banning people to our heart’s content. You see the current report process as burdening, I see it as necessary to ensure that we are handing out decisions to alleged violators properly. I disagree with your point.

@DevHC

there should be 100s of bans and plenty of demotions.

And this is my fundamental PROBLEM. No, we should NOT be handing out “100s” of bans and demotions in a community as niche and small as Tremulous. The bans/demotions we should be handing out should be done according to the rules on a per-case basis and handed out selectively. We don’t hand them out like candy. Your solution to this problem seems to be:

@DevHC

then u don’t just find a few admins, but enough to cover all time frames with reasonable probability: the more statistically active the time frame, the more admins covering it is desired.

What is the “reasonable probability”? What are “all” the time frames? How do we measure how “statistically active” the timeframe is? Who is A) willing to do all of this FOR FREE and B) make sure this information is accurate? You? No, it’d have to be us.

So allow me to try to lay out your plan for everyone:

1. Advertise more admin positions (because if we need admins, we can’t be passive)
2. Hire X more admins by:
   2a. Have them go through the proper selection process to decide if they’re competent
   2b. Based on rejections, keep hiring admins until we have X amount
   2c. Put them on probation, train them and then promote them until they have adequate access to all necessary commands.
3. Collaborate on what Y peak times are (based on obtaining objective and accurate information using internet tools)
4. Coordinate to employ X number of admins based on Y peak times
5. Have the time (AKA money) and capacity to manage all of this in a timely execution and if any problems/drama arise during this process

This is your solution to the “burdening” report system and GrangerPub’s inadequacy? The solution to GrangerPub’s problems is MORE admins and MORE bans and MORE demotions?

I disagree with your assessment. I think we should focus on the process of making decisions, the quality of individual admins and the quality of the tools they have. Even if you believe all of these previous factors are seriously lacking now, I do not agree that focusing on the quantity will solve more problems than it would create.

This is why features like forum reports, callvotes, registered users and /ignore are favored. This is why work is being done (both on 1.3 and the test server) on trying to create tools and features that would let the community be pro-active to issues instead of fallible admins, because your solution isn’t realistic.

Perhaps in a communist utopia where bills are nonexistent and time is plenty, this plan would be ideal. We don’t live in that world.

[Menace13]

@Hendrich

You see the current report process as burdening, I see it as necessary to ensure that we are handing out decisions to alleged violators properly.

@Hendrich

I think we should focus on the process of making decisions, the quality of individual admins and the quality of the tools they have.

These are both key statements. Quality of admins and tools they have are both extremely important, but you forgot one thing: the quality of the tools the non-admins have are just as important.

MaeJong coded a basic in-game report system which will be going live SOON™. It would be nice if we had some idea of when exactly that would be, but it’ll definitely help make this thread entirely pointless since a !report for every “gameplay disruption” would actually be handled unlike this list of unproven events.

@Hendrich

This is why work is being done (both on 1.3 and the test server) on trying to create tools and features that would let the community be pro-active to issues instead of fallible admins, because your solution isn’t realistic.

The problem with this is that Tremulous 1.3 and the test server both aren’t 1.1 or populated. What we need are tools for GrangerPub as it is now. The community doesn’t want to wait on empty promises. If we can just get MaeJong’s new shit on the server ASAP everything will be dandy, but people will continue complaining until then, and rightfully so.

[Hendrich]

@Menace13

It would be nice if we had some idea of when exactly that would be

I agree. However, as it constantly happened in the past with 1.2 on Tremulous.net, those ideas can change based on various factors, causing backlash. Whatever idea we’re going to get, it needs to be well thought out and explained before made, so if circumstances do change, the community won’t be left in the dark.

@Menace13

What we need are tools for GrangerPub as it is now. The community doesn’t want to wait on empty promises.

Unfortunately, I’m in no position to comment on that. Its definitely something that should be considered right now, by the relevant people, at this point in time.

[dGr8LookinSparky]

@Menace13

MaeJong coded a basic in-game report system which will be going live SOON™. It would be nice if we had some idea of when exactly that would be

@MaeJong & @romdos are the developers currently working on testing/fine-tuning Mae’s patches to the multiprotocol slackers, so they would have a better idea on the time fram for those patches to be suitable enough for GrangerPub to be upgraded with them.

@Menace13

If we can just get MaeJong’s new shit on the server ASAP everything will be dandy, but people will continue complaining until then, and rightfully so.

Not everything would be dandy. Yes those patches will probably be a major improvement for the current QVM on GrangerPub, but for the most part they are meant to be temporary solutions and don’t solve all the major issues that the upgrading to a complete enough 1.3 server will later.

[DevHC]

@Hendrich

@DevHC

PROPER™***

*** = WRONG

what part of PROPER™ did u fail to understand ?

So you have a PROBLEM with the administration, but you are protesting against it by not actually making a report in the proper*** category

*** = WRONG.

where the server logs can actually be dumped, where admins can discuss with the users and the alleged offenders on what happened or if a case can even be made.

server logs can be dumped anywhere, ie., even on IRC.

rephrasing key points — however, u should really stop ignoring my prompts to stop tl;dr-ing —: primarily, only top-level admins have access to the server logs, at least apparently on all servers. and upon accessing, the admin has irrefutable, and in most cases clear, evidence to confirm allegations and to administer sanctions right then, making the transcripts by players not only less secure (manipulatable) and their posting wasteful (in terms of time and patience) for the reporters, but the enforcement of this approach is also burdening for all players on the server due to the need for unwarranted proactive preparation on everyone’s part.

Just as admins are expected to take the initiative to do their job, players are expected to take the initiative to report malicious behaviour. That is, unless if /ignore or /callvotes fail. If admins are not available, then players need to prove malice before we start banning people to our heart’s content. You see the current report process as burdening, I see it as necessary to ensure that we are handing out decisions to alleged violators properly.

/dev/humancontroller’s — i’ll call it „methodological” — organization (roughly estimated is the units of total effort required for each action, on average, in the long-run):

• no regular player needs to learn anything, other than how to access the „report abuse” function in the menus and to mark an instance of abuse — eg., by opening the context menu for (ie., by right-clicking on) „Reactor DECONSTRUCTED by <player>”, and selecting „report this action as malicious”. (100)
• no admin needs to learn anything, other than the above, and how to use the „investigate report” and „detain reported player” functions, and how to access various sanction menus. (200)
• an automated system may help in identifying abuse.
• if a capable admin notices an instance of abuse, he/she needs to act on it (10 — if 2 admins act independently). otherwise:
• upon abuse, 1 regular player needs to perform the abuse-reporting described above (1 — the unit by definition).
• this raises a suggestion that others may confirm (10 — if 3/4 of a 30-player server’s population is to respond).
• if a capable admin is available (on the server or otherwise receptive and ready), he/she needs to review the case and to act on it (10 — counting the possibility of the need to start up a game client). otherwise:
• as soon as a capable admin becomes available, he/she needs to review and to act on each pending report (30).
• several other admins need to retrospectively review the handling of a report (60 — with +2 reviews).

GrangerPub’s — i’ll call it „makeshift” — organization (advocated by Hendrich):

• every regular player needs to learn to (auto-)record demos and create condumps (200), needs to get acquainted with the forum system (200) and specifically the format of reporting abuse (500) (and updates to it (50)), be responsive to upcoming questions (50), etc.
• every regular player needs to (auto-)record demos (5 — counting 30 players).
• if a capable admin notices an instance of abuse, he/she needs to act on it (10). otherwise:
• upon abuse, 1 regular player needs to raise the issue publicly (20 — if several players act independently, of which 1 calls a relevant vote, and 3/4 of a 30-player server’s population is to respond).
• if a capable admin is available (on the server), he/she needs to review the case and to act on it (15). otherwise — and, optionally, also in general, to achieve a form of logging:
• 1 player needs to take appropriate screenshots or condump-extracts (5), post (10 — counting the possibility of a game-browser switch) the demo and/or the shots/dumps (10 — counting the possibility of the need to use an external „upload space” provider), with appropriate descriptions (20), in the appropriate forum section.
  • each player must also eventually register on the forum (50).
• several capable admins need to visit the forum, and need to review and consult on a posted report. (200)
• after consensus, an admin needs to administer sanctions (15).

the makeshift organization incurs an effort that can be (and currently is) an order of magnitude greater than the methodological (proposed) organization, not to mention that the makeshift one is less effective at saving games from disruptions.

@DevHC

players r maximally burdened with an encumbering process of proactively preparing to and reporting cases.

Good.

there is no point in arguing further. u have a retarded view of what is beneficial for the human race, or, the community, period.

Your solution to this problem seems to be:

@DevHC

then u don’t just find a few admins, but enough to cover all time frames with reasonable probability: the more statistically active the time frame, the more admins covering it is desired.

no, that is just a patch to improve the anti-disruption capability of an organization. and note that, under the makeshift organization, a significant explosion in the waste of effort incurs when there is a lack of capable (as described above) admins on the server.

What is the “reasonable probability”? What are “all” the time frames?

that depends on the community, the number of dickheads, etc.; and ofc on opinions. „reasonable” includes „almost completely sufficient” and preferrably „completely sufficient”, but if the latter can only be achieved by excessive (and non-entertaining) time-planning on part of too much admins, with apparently relatively infrequent needs of invocation, then the former must be accepted („all” is merged into this definition as per „needs of invocation”). however, it’s safe to say that the Pub is insufficiently monitored.

How do we measure how “statistically active” the timeframe is?

AFAICT, there exist per-time-of-day server popularity measuring and graphing softwares for (Quake 3 and) Tremulous servers. not that these would be difficult to implement.

So allow me to try to lay out your plan for everyone:

this is a plan, not exactly mine, and not the ultimate one, but i’ll respond to this by criticizing it anyway.

Have them go through the proper selection process to decide if they’re competent

now, by „proper”,∗ u wouldn’t necessarily mean the path which i topically decry as being wasteful, which would be to require all applicants to fill out admin application forms (in which case: ∗ = „WRONG !!!1!”) ? specifically, any long-time observed, obviously admin-competent player should be eligible for acceptence without the hassle of fucking application forms — however, i’d say that, despite this, if u ask ppl to fill out application forms, most will voluntarily do so. eg., why am i still not set back¹ to level 9 (or whatever the maximum is now) on the Pub ?

¹ i was ORIGINAL™ly level 9, until the duo of @cron and @romdos (DICK and BUTT) happened.

until we have X amount

more precisely, until we have a day-time—admin-level distribution of X (eg., the server is always populated by at least 2 level-2 player, plus „relatively sufficiently” by 1–2 level-3 admins, and at peak hours, also by at least 1 level-5 admin; ofc except if the server is not populated at all).

using internet tools

the term „Internet tools” makes it sound like the needed data is not available directly on the server, or that the said tools r best installed on machines that r remote to the server.

Have the time (AKA money) and capacity to manage all of this in a timely execution and if any problems/drama arise during this process

this is no PROBLEM, as vast amounts of money™ and dealing force can come from the (new) participants („applicants”) of the process itself.

MORE admins and MORE bans and MORE demotions?

yes, but is this mathematically possible ? the answer is, OBVIOUSLY, yes. the explanation is simple:

• „more admins” refers to new admins.
• „more bans” refers to griefers.
• „more demotions” refers to abusive, misbehaving, outlashing admins.

this can be called a non-hesitative exploration of admin personnel space.

I think we should focus on the process of making decisions, the quality of individual admins and the quality of the tools they have.

plainly speaking, ind33d. however, my proposal is to focus on the tools, which will lend itself to a particular (admin-)decision-making process (ie., the methodoloical organization); failing or delaying this, increasing the total good-potential of the admins remains a priority, but which is to be achieved by a non-hesitative exploration of admin personnel space, not by keeping the current status quo of the admin roster.

[…]
I do not agree that focusing on the quantity will solve more problems than it would create.

This is why features like forum reports, callvotes, registered users and /ignore are favored. This is why work is being done (both on 1.3 and the test server) on trying to create tools and features that would let the community be pro-active to issues instead of fallible admins, because your solution isn’t realistic.

Perhaps in a communist utopia where bills are nonexistent and time is plenty, this plan would be ideal.

congratulations, u have successfully demonstrated a clusterfuck of incoherent thoughts that is internally inconsistent in every key way.

[Hendrich]

@DevHC

this is a plan, not exactly mine, and not the ultimate one, but i’ll respond to this by criticizing it anyway.

That is a fair point and I appreciate you doing so despite my mistake.

@DevHC

/dev/humancontroller’s — i’ll call it „methodological” — organization:

no regular player needs to learn anything, other than how to access the „report abuse” function in the menus and to mark an instance of abuse — eg., by opening the context menu for (ie., by right-clicking on) „Reactor

I’m going to stop you right there. Whatever method you think I’m advocating, its based on the tools and manpower we have right now. If we had access to anything close to what you’re describing, I’d be whistling a different tune.

@DevHC

there is no point in arguing further. u have a retarded view of what is beneficial for the human race, or, the community, period.

@DevHC

congratulations, u have successfully demonstrated a clusterfuck of incoherent thoughts that is internally inconsistent in every key way.

I initially intended to respond to your entire post, but I kept thinking back to these quotes. Its obvious that at this point, we fundamentally disagree with each other. I don’t believe typing another wall of text is going to reveal anything meaningful, change minds or produce anything productive.

However, I respect that you did respond to my post in it’s entirety.

[DevHC]

@Hendrich

Whatever method you think I’m advocating, its based on the tools and manpower we have right now.

wtshit does that mean ? that, for whatever reason, u want to keep the status quo of the admin roster, and invest 0 time into the development of tools ? ie., for whatever reason, u propose to maintain the current administration-related state of affairs ?

we fundamentally disagree with each other. I don’t believe typing another wall of text is going to reveal anything meaningful, change minds or produce anything productive.

i don’t even understand wtf u want and why — ur (non-)reasons for avoiding even the „patch” for the makeshift organization have so far appeared to be a clusterfuck of fallacies. first thing u should do is expand ur reasoning, so that i can point out where exactly u’re WRONG.