Server Permissions

[Swimming95]

I completely agree @wes It was something I was asked about and its really easy (ie 2 minutes) to code so I figured I would update the thread with that.

[Chase]

I think I'm the only one who will defend the /kick command staying to the end-all decision and I most certainly didn't create the poll. Silver, I explicitly was the one that gave people direction as to how to vote correctly. Please don't make the assertion that I give so much of a fuck as to "defend a toy" to the point where I am being dishonest and taking the power away from the voter base.

Also, since this is taking a nasty turn here in the comment section, I would suggest another moderator to lock conversation. I do find it very interesting that the biggest proponents of the kick command being nixed are the auth/former auth that are guilty of abusing it in the past.

---

@ Wes

The thing about /Kick as a disciplinary command was that it was faulty in doing so. The kick-ee was able to evade the kick almost immediately and thus the command would be followed by a stronger disciplinary command almost instantaneously every single time it was used as such. It had no value as a disciplinary command in that there was no authority behind it at all at the end of the day. The real decision here is not to treat /Kick like a disciplinary kick at all. You all as the community have been given the option to either remove the command because it's ineffective and doesn't have any value whatsoever, or keep it as a "fun" command. The argument is very clearly laid out for the voters. It's either for fun, or it's gone. Ball's in your court.

This community has held it's ground for years regardless of what the outside world has thought of it's moderators or community members. There is no new user quota, and while we do indeed have a decorum that we are working tirelessly to instill and promote and perhaps most importantly in this case - lead by example - we are not fishing for more people as actively as you describe. This community has never had to do so, as the game's success has been mostly word-of-mouth. Just because the 'potential' for a command to be used to the point of abuse is there doesn't make a situation where the command is used immediately a death knell for community growth and it's wrong to campaign under such claim - let alone call into question the character of those who do support it - auth and user alike. I wouldn't have made it on to this auth team if I didn't think about how to help best run a community and I'm sure others with my view have their credentials as well. Personally attacking people is not the way to rally the troops here - you haven't done so yet, but if your argument is going to continue to vilify the opposing viewpoint you are indeed putting yourself at risk of being disrespectful.

The Stockholm Syndrome accusation is laughably off-base - and I have done my best to call to attention where the poll outcome can be changed regardless of my position. I am not trying to push a personal agenda or hold others captive simply because I support the use of the command as a fun command. I, as you do, WANT voters to speak their mind and vote as they feel they should.

I am not surprised by the way this vote is evenly divided at the moment - and despite earlier looking better for my personal stance on the matter, I only care about making sure this poll is done as right as possible regardless of which side wins. As for whoever made the poll, don't look at me and don't be ridiculous in calling it rigged.

Obviously it wasn't well communicated between - which is why I took the liberty to let you know the way they were being counted before the vote closed so that justice could be enacted. As a "supporter" of the way the poll was "rigged" (sarcasm) I could have done myself a favor and NOT mentioned that to you. Why would any sort of corrective announcement be made from me if I wanted any unfair advantage to remain.

[Wes]

I think I'm the only one who will defend the /kick command staying to the end-all decision and I most certainly didn't create the poll. Silver, I explicitly was the one that gave people direction as to how to vote correctly. Please don't make the assertion that I give so much of a fuck as to "defend a toy" to the point where I am being dishonest and taking the power away from the voter base.

Except you are taking it away from the voterbase by making it a 2 against 1 poll option. It's literally just a ploy to make it look as thought it's a fair trial but in fact is not. Stop claiming otherwise or just merge the two options already. This poll is nothing more than something to make those who want it removed to feel as though they have a chance when the odds are stacked greatly against them despite the largest chunk of voters wanting it removed in the first place. That's not how democratic systems work, so stop acting as though it's even remotely fair and properly handled at the moment.

Also, since this is taking a nasty turn here in the comment section, I would suggest another moderator to lock conversation. I do find it very interesting that the biggest proponents of the kick command being nixed are the auth/former auth that are guilty of abusing it in the past.

Oh no, this is a thread used to vote and discuss the matter at hand. It's not right to be given the last word on a matter during a civil debate and just close it after you've said your peace. Even if former auth have issues with it as is, that is in the past and not anything to do with the present. If you're willing to use the argument of how /kick is no longer a disciplinary command, then you don't have to right to sit in the past when it comes to others' views as they may have changed the very same way.

---

@ Wes

The thing about /Kick as a disciplinary command was that it was faulty in doing so. The kick-ee was able to evade the kick almost immediately and thus the command would be followed by a stronger disciplinary command almost instantaneously every single time it was used as such. It had no value as a disciplinary command in that there was no authority behind it at all at the end of the day. The real decision here is not to treat /Kick like a disciplinary kick at all. You all as the community have been given the option to either remove the command because it's ineffective and doesn't have any value whatsoever, or keep it as a "fun" command. The argument is very clearly laid out for the voters. It's either for fun, or it's gone. Ball's in your court.

Except it is a disciplinary command because it forcibly removes someone from a channel, whether the intention is fun or not. That is undeniable fact. Whether it's used as intended is irrelevant to what it is in nature and function. As for thing being clearly laid out for voters and the "ball being in our court" if that were the case there would be 2 poll options and not something as left field as this 3 option but 2 count as the same shit that is being used right now as a simple means of "my way or the highway" approach. You don't get to make the claim of fair and just process when it is clearly heavily weighted in favor or one side more than the other that actually has more votes in a single category.

This community has held it's ground for years regardless of what the outside world has thought of it's moderators or community members. There is no new user quota, and while we do indeed have a decorum that we are working tirelessly to instill and promote and perhaps most importantly in this case - lead by example - we are not fishing for more people as actively as you describe. This community has never had to do so, as the game's success has been mostly word-of-mouth. Just because the 'potential' for a command to be used to the point of abuse is there doesn't make a situation where the command is used immediately a death knell for community growth and it's wrong to campaign under such claim - let alone call into question the character of those who do support it - auth and user alike. I wouldn't have made it on to this auth team if I didn't think about how to help best run a community and I'm sure others with my view have their credentials as well. Personally attacking people is not the way to rally the troops here - you haven't done so yet, but if your argument is going to continue to vilify the opposing viewpoint you are indeed putting yourself at risk of being disrespectful.

I said absolutely nothing of a quota. A quota implies you require so many new within a certain amount of time. I said that traffic is picking up and somewhat steady, and if you didn't realize, that means new people coming in as well due to exposure of the fan games that are both based from here. And because there is the potential of new people, there is the potential of said new people not being able to properly opt out of being kicked for funsies before it very well may happen to them, thus causing more issues. You say the way I am putting things is being disrespectful, but in fact all I am doing is speaking my mind the same way you are and it happens to disagree and that is being taken from the viewpoint of being disrespectful because of some personal reason or another. I am being incredibly respectful right now, if I were not then I would not take the time to word out my concerns the way I am instead of just posting memes or the like in their place. I also fail to see how my approach doesn't agree with people, considering the amount of upvotes my posts have received while sharing the actual popular vote of /kick being removed. So next time you want to call someone out because their viewpoint happens to be directly opposite of yours.

The Stockholm Syndrome accusation is laughably off-base - and I have done my best to call to attention where the poll outcome can be changed regardless of my position. I am not trying to push a personal agenda or hold others captive simply because I support the use of the command as a fun command. I, as you do, WANT voters to speak their mind and vote as they feel they should.

It's not even entirely about the VOTERS at this stage of the argument. If you're a regular user with no ties to auth members and just hang out on the server and happen to get caught up in a fun kick. They are not going to confront the person responsible for the kick and if asked will likely just think "oh well if it's just in good fun" or "you know I actually probably did something wrong since I'm new and didn't know the rules well yet." I want people to speak their mind, but that simply isn't going to happen when you make posts such as this one basically telling those who do speak their mind that they are being disrespectful or that the would-be victims of a case are nothing more than "can't take a joke" or "they didn't say anything so everything must be ok!".

I am not surprised by the way this vote is evenly divided at the moment - and despite earlier looking better for my personal stance on the matter, I only care about making sure this poll is done as right as possible regardless of which side wins. As for whoever made the poll, don't look at me and don't be ridiculous in calling it rigged.

It's not divided evenly at all. There are 3 options listed, so 3 possible outcomes. Last I checked if you want a poll with 2 possible outcomes, you put 2 things you can vote on. Look at this through the eyes of common sense, option 3 clearly has nearly double the amount of votes as either of the other 2 possible outcomes of this circumstance in this given time.

Next time you wish to do a poll with only 2 options, only put 2 options rather than telling people the rules of something after they've voted. That is unprofessional and causes more issues down the road than it does fix simply to keep things as they are.

Obviously it wasn't well communicated between - which is why I took the liberty to let you know the way they were being counted before the vote closed so that justice could be enacted. As a "supporter" of the way the poll was "rigged" (sarcasm) I could have done myself a favor and NOT mentioned that to you. Why would any sort of corrective announcement be made from me if I wanted any unfair advantage to remain.

You need to either tell people before the votes commence or leave the chips as they lie. You gotta know when to hold em and know when to fold em. I expect better out of people who make claims of fair trial when in fact the entire auth team doesn't even know how the auth team is going to handle a situation. Communication is key in any sort of job environment, and yes the auth team is supposed to be just that. You don't change the options later on after the preferred outcome is no longer reachable due to a conflict in opinions.

[Amethyst]

You can blame me for the fault of the poll's creation-- not her. Obviously the situation isn't ideal, however it was posted to public before the issue with this was brought to my attention. While I understand that it seems cheap to to count the two options against the one, it's hard for me to refute that logic with something over-simplistic like that it only matters which singular option in the poll gets the most votes.

The poll itself is not what's important-- the opinions of those voting in it is. The poll reflects that regardless of if there's one option for keeping kick, or five. If ten people vote for kick to stay in each of those five options, it's the same as fifty people voting in the one. Either way, that's 50 people who don't want /kick removed. I believe it would be more deceptive to overlook this fact.

The total of the first two options shows us how many people do not want to remove kick. The total of the second two options shows us how many people do not want Driver to have kick. There -is- a notable fault in that latter part, since it means that people who vote to remove kick no longer actually have a say in if Drivers get it or not, should it pass. Indeed, these should have been two separate questions to begin with. At this point, we could combine the first two options of the poll to correct it into a basic "should kick stay" question and follow up with permissions later-- however, that changes nothing about the actual result, and I know from experience, would actually break the poll disabling further votes.

Nonetheless, you're wrong to accuse the side in support of /kick for the poll being set up how it is. That was my fault alone, and I personally would rather remove /kick if for no other reason than to render obsolete the conflict it's caused over so many years.

[Dana]

I have to agree that it should have just been 2 choices with another poll added in case it does pass like "if /kick stays who should have access to it (pick one even if you chose to have /kick removed)"

I voted for it to be removed, but say that it doesn't make it. At that point i would at least want to vote for the fact that drivers can't have access to it. I personally don't think it's that fair to to those who want /kick removed, and not have a choice to who can and can't utilize this command if it goes through. yes it shouldn't have ended up like this, and i don't think it isn't anyone's fault in particular. but if you know what went wrong, make sure something like this doesn't happen in the future.

I think that's the serious problem here. of course there will be debates that will defend peoples opinions and that's okay, that's why we're having the poll in the first place, but you understand that if people are going to get upset over the lack of knowledge because there was no fine print. it's up to you guys to take responsibility for this since it's what the people want. In my opinion, if the poll can't be merged and working as well as add the choice of choosing between who should be able to use /kick then i say continue the poll, since ame said in the end the results will still be the same then add a poll to choose whether drivers or all auths can have access. If you cannot on the other hand, then I say the first part and start a new topic and allow users to vote for only TWO choices to keep or remove the /kick with another poll for what users can use /kick.

given how long this topic as been active I know there will be people who think that the second option is a dumb idea, but you can't deny that it's the most reasonable course of action that's both fair and rational and that should be good enough to be taken into account. and it's honestly not hard to just vote again. in the end it's up to the auth whether or not a second poll is needed. Just make sure that if you do make sure it's organized a little better.

[Wes]

You can blame me for the fault of the poll's creation-- not her. Obviously the situation isn't ideal, however it was posted to public before the issue with this was brought to my attention. While I understand that it seems cheap to to count the two options against the one, it's hard for me to refute that logic with something over-simplistic like that it only matters which singular option in the poll gets the most votes.

I'm not blaming Hilda, she's simply the one bringing it up to attention and defending it. And it's easy to refute the logic because while they both first options seem in favor of keeping kick, it's not that simple. Both have a different condition to it, that being the whole reason they were split to begin with. If you ignore that then the issue they were both added for rather than just keep or remove kick was pointless.

The poll itself is not what's important-- the opinions of those voting in it is. The poll reflects that regardless of if there's one option for keeping kick, or five. If ten people vote for kick to stay in each of those five options, it's the same as fifty people voting in the one. Either way, that's 50 people who don't want /kick removed. I believe it would be more deceptive to overlook this fact.

The poll itself is very much what is important. It is what is being the deciding factor in this and has been the main way of people actually contributing to the decisions. The amount of options IS important even if they seem to be in line with each others' grand points. You don't go into an election with one Republican and two Democratic candidates and then tally the two Democratic candidates' votes because they came from the same political party. Even if you feel that the majority do not want it removed, the largest vote does. If you want proper numbers for votes, do a different poll with only 2 options or count the votes properly.

The total of the first two options shows us how many people do not want to remove kick. The total of the second two options shows us how many people do not want Driver to have kick. There -is- a notable fault in that latter part, since it means that people who vote to remove kick no longer actually have a say in if Drivers get it or not, should it pass. Indeed, these should have been two separate questions to begin with. At this point, we could combine the first two options of the poll to correct it into a basic "should kick stay" question and follow up with permissions later-- however, that changes nothing about the actual result, and I know from experience, would actually break the poll disabling further votes.

Make it a separate option within the poll saying "If /kick stays do Drivers get it: Yes or No". If it's recognized as a faulty poll you either count the votes as the options show, or you make a new poll that properly reflects the options you want displayed. I know it seems like I'm just being difficult and I'm sure this is a stressful situation, but as the person in charge of this whole community Ame, you need to either be able to stick with the guns of what you present to the community or to own up to the mistakes and redo things properly. Meeting things in the middle to appease everyone doesn't always work.

Nonetheless, you're wrong to accuse the side in support of /kick for the poll being set up how it is. That was my fault alone, and I personally would rather remove /kick if for no other reason than to render obsolete the conflict it's caused over so many years.

I'm accusing the poll and those who have had say in the poll being handled improperly for its improper representation. No one more no one less. Whether that is you, or anyone else. Like I said, I know this is an annoying situation that everyone wants to be over I'm sure, but that's all the more reason to do it properly rather than half-assed so that the effort spent is at least justified with an ends to the situation instead of it all just being for nothing.

[mde2001]

I don't use the server that much so this doesn't really bother me but I'm fine with the topic creation and the options being separate.

The people who have voted for All Auth or @ and higher would almost certainly have voted for keeping it. Their choice implies that they wish for it to remain in some form given that they want it to be available to certain auth members.

I'm trying not to take a side in keeping vs removing but I think that saying that the poll was biased is not really fair. At the moment 42 people wish for Kick to remain in some form and 41 don't wish for it to remain. To me that says that at the moment the majority of people want kick to stay around.

Look, maybe the poll would have been simpler if it only had two options but that ship has sailed. It would be too complicated to have a questionnaire where you are asked what your second choice is (for example if you voted @ and higher would you prefer all auth to have it or it to be removed) but chances are if they want at least a subcategory of the auth to have it they will want it to stay around.

[ZEL]

The thing is, you're not wrong in noting that it's very likely that the people who voted for the first two options are going to want /kick to stay.

But by lumping these options together with the "remove /kick" one, the poll prevents all the no voters from deciding on a preference for those options.

To use myself as an example (as I can't speak for anyone else) - I voted to remove /kick, but if the command gets to stay, I want it to be restricted to @ and higher.

Due to having voted "no", however, I now do not get a say in the other matter.

I'm fairly sure that I'm not the only one among the "no" voters who would have liked to be able to.

[Wes]

I don't use the server that much so this doesn't really bother me but I'm fine with the topic creation and the options being separate.

The people who have voted for All Auth or @ and higher would almost certainly have voted for keeping it. Their choice implies that they wish for it to remain in some form given that they want it to be available to certain auth members.

I'm trying not to take a side in keeping vs removing but I think that saying that the poll was biased is not really fair. At the moment 42 people wish for Kick to remain in some form and 41 don't wish for it to remain. To me that says that at the moment the majority of people want kick to stay around.

Look, maybe the poll would have been simpler if it only had two options but that ship has sailed. It would be too complicated to have a questionnaire where you are asked what your second choice is (for example if you voted @ and higher would you prefer all auth to have it or it to be removed) but chances are if they want at least a subcategory of the auth to have it they will want it to stay around.

The problem isn't whether or not they would or would not have voted yes or no. The problem is that there were multiple options and that the poll was presented in a false way until it was already underway and had voters. Sure, they likely would still vote to keep, but they voted for a specific condition on it and it's not fair to the largest vote which consists of 44 people to have been told later that "oh you have to outvote both things total because they mean the same thing" when in fact they do not and this poll was presented in a matter that does not reflect the intention.

The thing is, you're not wrong in noting that it's very likely that the people who voted for the first two options are going to want /kick to stay.

But by lumping these options together with the "remove /kick" one, the poll prevents all the no voters from deciding on a preference for those options.

To use myself as an example (as I can't speak for anyone else) - I voted to remove /kick, but if the command gets to stay, I want it to be restricted to @ and higher.

Due to having voted "no", however, I now do not get a say in the other matter.

I'm fairly sure that I'm not the only one among the "no" voters who would have liked to be able to.

This. Exactly this. You don't just lump votes together and then remove the rights of those who voted for a different outcome.

If you want to have a poll for it to stay or be removed, you do that first. Then you do a separate poll or option for who actually gets to use the command if it stays. It's not that complicated and doesn't need to be made as such like it has been here. I don't expect people to do everything perfectly, but I do expect people in the positions of power who want the community to vote, to actually reside within that vote as they present it rather than changing how the vote works in the first place after the fact.

[Chase]

Assuming the vote were to stand as it had been (now the remove voters are clearly ahead by 4.) the @ only vs. all auth could easily be re-polled to include the previously unable removal voters. Wouldn't that solve the issue?

My issue was more-so with Silver and Morgan earlier, who were more aggressive in calling out "auth that want to protect a toy" and being prejudicial in saying that the auth is protecting the right to discriminate against users and what not. The fact that the poll is pretty dead even seems to suggest that many of the supporting voters don't think that's what the auth intended at all and working with these people, I assure you, even those like me don't want to have a command that we can just use to ruin anyone's life.

Wes, for the most part, you have taken an angle of experience and while it was hard, it wasn't aggressive rhetoric like some other vocal posters here.

As for Ame's intent, I know for a fact that she just wanted the community to have as MUCH say as possible on a wide array of issues the auth simply came to gridlock on, not just should /Kick stay or go. There was no ill intent, and for said reason of having as much say as possible - -I- would absolutely re-poll the matter in the event of kicking keep winning the poll.

That is probably not going to be necessary.

[Rosesong]

Ok, so I'm going to weigh in on this matter because to be entirely honest I'm tired and disgusted at how this entire thing has been blown out of proportion. So that it is known, I am one of those that believe all auth should have access to kick, provided that it stays.

My reason for voting this way is really simple. I have great friendships with a majority of those that are authed, and I know that they're only going to use it on me as a joke. It has no ramifications on my standing as a user within the community by being kicked. I feel as if both the auth and the user are on the same page and have come to a prior agreement on whether or not being kicked is ok, then there's no need for any sort of complaint. However, if an auth doesn't have a long standing friendship with a user or has not expressly given their consent to being kicked, that would be seen as a violation of the rules in regards to no having fun at another user's expense, and that action could and should be taken. As the original post by Ame states, this affects the users, so if a user agrees to it, is there anything wrong in keeping it?

Now is where the but comes in. Just reading this thread, the community has been divided over something as stupid and inconsequential as a command for amusement. I personally don't think this is a user issue to begin with; let the auth decide if the command stays or goes, inform the user base of the result and any parameters, it's done and good to go. It's not worth all of the tension between users, because at the end of the day, everyone just wants to help make Reborn a better place that we all want to come to.

[Dark Desire]

Personally I don't find this issue stupid or inconsequential but I do apologize if you feel that the community has been divided over this, I felt like staff should have been able to come to a conclusion ourselves but imo the last few meetings have been pretty frustrating to be apart of

[Rosesong]

I mean, I just don't see why there's so much division over this.

[Vinny]

To me, this entire poll falls into one question: How much modding do you (Ame), wants from us, Drivers?

Because if you want Drivers to be sub-mods, then this entire poll wouldn't be necessary. We would have access to the commands, and that's it. The question of /kick being a fun command wouldn't even come into question, since it would be Driver's only "somewhat effective" tool.

However, if you don't want drivers to be "sub-mods", then what's the point in keeping /kick, if /setkick is right there, and it does the same thing, in a much better way?

Which makes me ask the question: Why don't mods use /setkick too for shits and giggles? Is it because it's longer to write than /kick? Or maybe is it because it would undermine the command?

We might never know.

As for /warn and /redirect, well...

As It was stated before, server rules = forum rules, so /warn is okay to leave where it is. I've got no problem in leaving /redirect the way it is too, seeing as it's used so little that I've never seen any problems with the command.