SkullCollector

Hello everyone.
I am not entirely sure if this is the correct place to put this, as its not a mod request per se, but I have been watching Dslyecxi's videos lately and the AAR reports are absolutely fantastic.
You can see an example here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CC9gmF2re0
I've been searching around, but it seems that shacktacs's AAR mod is private and not accessible to the public.
 
 
Would it be possible to create a similar system for AWE? I realize that its probably not doable for Frontlines/I&A (although it would be absolutely awesome), but I think we could learn a lot from our gamenights by using it.
Even if we dont get the fancy 3D graphics, having a tool like this: https://github.com/OCAP2/OCAP might do the job almost as well, although we lose altitude info from air assets.
OCAP2 also supports a website, so it can be publicly accessible.
 
Anyways, I know we have some fantastic dev's, so you guys would have to comment on the feasability of this.
 
It would also have to be tested for performance impact and stability of course.
 
What does everyone think?
Would you be interested in sitting down and having a look back at what happened?
I think at least for me, when squad leading, it would be a fantastic tool for learning.

Idea:
 
Enemy units will come looking for captured units that are still carrying their radio. To prevent this, players have to strip and search every captured unit.
 
Edit: and remove their radio ofcourse

Hi all,
 
Based on recent events and feedback from the community, we have decided to introduce a regular community meeting, to be held on a regular schedule which is to be agreed during the first meeting.
 
The first of these meetings is to be on Thursday 22nd July at 18:00UTC held in the Ahoyworld Teamspeak. (ts.ahoyworld.net, weekday/times of future meetings is another topic to discuss and agree)
 
The purpose of these meetings will be to both communicate staff plans to members and to discuss member feedback/concerns.
With the plan being that at subsequent meetings we can determine the effectiveness of any measures/actions decided at previous meetings and adjust accordingly.

The heart of Ahoyworld is and has always been its members. As CS we strive to meet the needs and expectations of the members, though sometimes as people we fail to do this but I hope that if we can have a more open forum then we can be more proactive rather than reactive.
 
In advance of this meeting we will be preparing an agenda as put forward by the members and keeping minutes for record on the forum for those that cannot attend. Any member can put forward a topic to discuss.

Please share below any topic which you would like to see discussed or message a member of Core Staff with your suggestion if you wish to do so privately. 
 
Looking forward to seeing you there
 

Side mission has been implemented so sectors can 'request repairs' from your forces. They will request a number of supplies from you which you need to deliver within 30 minutes, then you will gain 75% of the civ rep loss (so currently +6%). The side mission will be added on the next map change, due to it not being accurate for the current run
I have also added a small menu to choose the amount of crates you want to retrieve from a factory, as well as the ability to withdraw resources from a FOB.

Side mission idea:
 
Rebuilt civilian structures.
Cost: 100 supplies per damaged structure
Reward: Regain 60% of civilian reputation lost on destruction per rebuilt structure
 
This side mission kinda serves as a way for players to "clean up their own mess" after a firefight. The destroyed buildings and to which objective they belong get saved by the mission. When players launch the side mission, it chooses an (maybe random) objective that has destroyed structures. Players then simply have to drop the supplies off at the objective. For every structure rebuilt they regain some civilian reputation.

The way this thread is going is grand. That's something to appreciate.
 
From what I read, a good part of the dissatisfaction about the unit stemmed from the mission makers for the drop in AW players. I understand that and I think I can relate to the feelings involved.
To slowly lead that into a suggestion, I would mention that I didn't play those missions because the themes didn't interest me. Vietnam is not my cup of tea, but I played a couple for the banter. Star Wars was three standard deviations removed from what I like, as was Halo. About Star Wars, at least, I let Siege know after a TS poke that it wasn't for me. I think a similar thing held true for other players, in that it just wasn't their interest.
 
So my suggestion is to have regular polls and meetings. Have polls to gauge interests in future campaign ideas. If you are satisfied with the responses even if small, everyone involved can set their expectations correctly. If you're not, lead that into a discussion about why the interest is low and be open-minded to drop or adjust the idea.
 
Similarly, in particular for staff, have regular meetings. Monthly.
Most people avoid confrontation. That's natural and probably relatable. To foster constructive confrontations, the absolute best you can do is to foster a safe, supported platform for communication. Allow members of staff, perhaps even Vet-FA, to submit points for an agenda prior to the meeting, then go through them. If there's nothing, grand, you've spent a few minutes to leave the meeting in the knowledge that you're right as rain.
 
In the vein of safe communication, foster good feedback philosophy. The gamenight debriefs are once again a marvellous illustration of that, but it can go further: Praise in public, criticise in private. People experienced in HR are rolling their eyes now.
Over the years, I have been told that I don't look like staff, that I'm too nice. Good! That means you haven't been invited to a private chat by me.
The rules only allow for so much direct action. You have your hackers and your teamkillers, but situations like the topic at hand are not rare, as uncomfortable as they are. The elephant in the room was difficult to navigate around, so I can wager it was easier to stay in one corner with the people already there.
 
Artemis noted that the division was apparent long ago. Sadly, it wasn't to me. I was frustrated with some AWE decisions, which I aired, and I just reckoned that some animosity from the sidelines stemmed from a disagreement about creative directions. There was some pushback to an unconventional gamenight idea, plus the minor squabble about event sign-ups.
 
The rest of it, the real of it, was not once brought to my attention besides a salient question by a dev in #mission-makers about using Discord Rich Presence of our own.
 
A meeting could have cleared this up many months ago. What's done is done, but just perhaps that's something to take forward.

I normally try to avoid drama, but this seems important enough to weigh in so here is my 1 and only post on the topic:
 
This... a thousand times, this...

Just reading through the posts, it's clear that the issue isn't the rules, it's the communication, that people don't feel that they're being listened to in full and their comments taken on board. Don't let this become an issue scraped under the carpet with a solution of "We'll review the rules".

Regarding should the issue have been raised? Absolutely, it's something that needed clarifying
Should there have been any punishments or bad feeling generated from this in any direction? Absolutely not, common sense rules that this is no different to using another servers squad xml when playing. It's automated and not intentional.

That's all that needed to happen, just that. Instead we clearly have a huge communication issue leaving everyone feel aggrieved.
 
I am deeply sorry to see so many wonderful members of the team leave, they will all be greatly missed, and I hope to see them again some day, but I understand that feelings run deep and it can be hard to settle differences, and to recognise where apologies are owed. I just hope we learn the right lessons from this.
 
 - Andy / Nibbs99

The way this thread is going is grand. That's something to appreciate.
 
From what I read, a good part of the dissatisfaction about the unit stemmed from the mission makers for the drop in AW players. I understand that and I think I can relate to the feelings involved.
To slowly lead that into a suggestion, I would mention that I didn't play those missions because the themes didn't interest me. Vietnam is not my cup of tea, but I played a couple for the banter. Star Wars was three standard deviations removed from what I like, as was Halo. About Star Wars, at least, I let Siege know after a TS poke that it wasn't for me. I think a similar thing held true for other players, in that it just wasn't their interest.
 
So my suggestion is to have regular polls and meetings. Have polls to gauge interests in future campaign ideas. If you are satisfied with the responses even if small, everyone involved can set their expectations correctly. If you're not, lead that into a discussion about why the interest is low and be open-minded to drop or adjust the idea.
 
Similarly, in particular for staff, have regular meetings. Monthly.
Most people avoid confrontation. That's natural and probably relatable. To foster constructive confrontations, the absolute best you can do is to foster a safe, supported platform for communication. Allow members of staff, perhaps even Vet-FA, to submit points for an agenda prior to the meeting, then go through them. If there's nothing, grand, you've spent a few minutes to leave the meeting in the knowledge that you're right as rain.
 
In the vein of safe communication, foster good feedback philosophy. The gamenight debriefs are once again a marvellous illustration of that, but it can go further: Praise in public, criticise in private. People experienced in HR are rolling their eyes now.
Over the years, I have been told that I don't look like staff, that I'm too nice. Good! That means you haven't been invited to a private chat by me.
The rules only allow for so much direct action. You have your hackers and your teamkillers, but situations like the topic at hand are not rare, as uncomfortable as they are. The elephant in the room was difficult to navigate around, so I can wager it was easier to stay in one corner with the people already there.
 
Artemis noted that the division was apparent long ago. Sadly, it wasn't to me. I was frustrated with some AWE decisions, which I aired, and I just reckoned that some animosity from the sidelines stemmed from a disagreement about creative directions. There was some pushback to an unconventional gamenight idea, plus the minor squabble about event sign-ups.
 
The rest of it, the real of it, was not once brought to my attention besides a salient question by a dev in #mission-makers about using Discord Rich Presence of our own.
 
A meeting could have cleared this up many months ago. What's done is done, but just perhaps that's something to take forward.

I haven't read all of this thread so it may have already been said.
 
I believe one good thing that AW needs to return and stay is regular staff and player meetings. Host this regularly, have staff and community members work out points of discussion and stick to the routine.
 
In the past when AW had a rather large divide, this was a decision that was made and we managed regular community meetings where everyone had a chance to share their thoughts on improvements, have debates and also provide a time for staff to provide regular news for the community with real time feedback on what they thought.
 
I think fostering an environment of regular discussion and feedback in real time during regular meetings will help to reinforce that "stand by eachother" mentality that is seeming to be lacking recently and help to bring about new ideas on the regular to maintain focus.
 
I feel that this could all be planned out with a community meeting to let people take the stage and talk about what they would expect from these meetings and the best ways to do it. It may also help to get people together to chat and just have a fresh start if needed.
 
This was something that @PiranhA did a while back and I believe the fresh start then was one of the best things to happen. Just let bygones be bygones and let the community shape the way forward.

The way this thread is going is grand. That's something to appreciate.
 
From what I read, a good part of the dissatisfaction about the unit stemmed from the mission makers for the drop in AW players. I understand that and I think I can relate to the feelings involved.
To slowly lead that into a suggestion, I would mention that I didn't play those missions because the themes didn't interest me. Vietnam is not my cup of tea, but I played a couple for the banter. Star Wars was three standard deviations removed from what I like, as was Halo. About Star Wars, at least, I let Siege know after a TS poke that it wasn't for me. I think a similar thing held true for other players, in that it just wasn't their interest.
 
So my suggestion is to have regular polls and meetings. Have polls to gauge interests in future campaign ideas. If you are satisfied with the responses even if small, everyone involved can set their expectations correctly. If you're not, lead that into a discussion about why the interest is low and be open-minded to drop or adjust the idea.
 
Similarly, in particular for staff, have regular meetings. Monthly.
Most people avoid confrontation. That's natural and probably relatable. To foster constructive confrontations, the absolute best you can do is to foster a safe, supported platform for communication. Allow members of staff, perhaps even Vet-FA, to submit points for an agenda prior to the meeting, then go through them. If there's nothing, grand, you've spent a few minutes to leave the meeting in the knowledge that you're right as rain.
 
In the vein of safe communication, foster good feedback philosophy. The gamenight debriefs are once again a marvellous illustration of that, but it can go further: Praise in public, criticise in private. People experienced in HR are rolling their eyes now.
Over the years, I have been told that I don't look like staff, that I'm too nice. Good! That means you haven't been invited to a private chat by me.
The rules only allow for so much direct action. You have your hackers and your teamkillers, but situations like the topic at hand are not rare, as uncomfortable as they are. The elephant in the room was difficult to navigate around, so I can wager it was easier to stay in one corner with the people already there.
 
Artemis noted that the division was apparent long ago. Sadly, it wasn't to me. I was frustrated with some AWE decisions, which I aired, and I just reckoned that some animosity from the sidelines stemmed from a disagreement about creative directions. There was some pushback to an unconventional gamenight idea, plus the minor squabble about event sign-ups.
 
The rest of it, the real of it, was not once brought to my attention besides a salient question by a dev in #mission-makers about using Discord Rich Presence of our own.
 
A meeting could have cleared this up many months ago. What's done is done, but just perhaps that's something to take forward.

The way this thread is going is grand. That's something to appreciate.
 
From what I read, a good part of the dissatisfaction about the unit stemmed from the mission makers for the drop in AW players. I understand that and I think I can relate to the feelings involved.
To slowly lead that into a suggestion, I would mention that I didn't play those missions because the themes didn't interest me. Vietnam is not my cup of tea, but I played a couple for the banter. Star Wars was three standard deviations removed from what I like, as was Halo. About Star Wars, at least, I let Siege know after a TS poke that it wasn't for me. I think a similar thing held true for other players, in that it just wasn't their interest.
 
So my suggestion is to have regular polls and meetings. Have polls to gauge interests in future campaign ideas. If you are satisfied with the responses even if small, everyone involved can set their expectations correctly. If you're not, lead that into a discussion about why the interest is low and be open-minded to drop or adjust the idea.
 
Similarly, in particular for staff, have regular meetings. Monthly.
Most people avoid confrontation. That's natural and probably relatable. To foster constructive confrontations, the absolute best you can do is to foster a safe, supported platform for communication. Allow members of staff, perhaps even Vet-FA, to submit points for an agenda prior to the meeting, then go through them. If there's nothing, grand, you've spent a few minutes to leave the meeting in the knowledge that you're right as rain.
 
In the vein of safe communication, foster good feedback philosophy. The gamenight debriefs are once again a marvellous illustration of that, but it can go further: Praise in public, criticise in private. People experienced in HR are rolling their eyes now.
Over the years, I have been told that I don't look like staff, that I'm too nice. Good! That means you haven't been invited to a private chat by me.
The rules only allow for so much direct action. You have your hackers and your teamkillers, but situations like the topic at hand are not rare, as uncomfortable as they are. The elephant in the room was difficult to navigate around, so I can wager it was easier to stay in one corner with the people already there.
 
Artemis noted that the division was apparent long ago. Sadly, it wasn't to me. I was frustrated with some AWE decisions, which I aired, and I just reckoned that some animosity from the sidelines stemmed from a disagreement about creative directions. There was some pushback to an unconventional gamenight idea, plus the minor squabble about event sign-ups.
 
The rest of it, the real of it, was not once brought to my attention besides a salient question by a dev in #mission-makers about using Discord Rich Presence of our own.
 
A meeting could have cleared this up many months ago. What's done is done, but just perhaps that's something to take forward.

The way this thread is going is grand. That's something to appreciate.
 
From what I read, a good part of the dissatisfaction about the unit stemmed from the mission makers for the drop in AW players. I understand that and I think I can relate to the feelings involved.
To slowly lead that into a suggestion, I would mention that I didn't play those missions because the themes didn't interest me. Vietnam is not my cup of tea, but I played a couple for the banter. Star Wars was three standard deviations removed from what I like, as was Halo. About Star Wars, at least, I let Siege know after a TS poke that it wasn't for me. I think a similar thing held true for other players, in that it just wasn't their interest.
 
So my suggestion is to have regular polls and meetings. Have polls to gauge interests in future campaign ideas. If you are satisfied with the responses even if small, everyone involved can set their expectations correctly. If you're not, lead that into a discussion about why the interest is low and be open-minded to drop or adjust the idea.
 
Similarly, in particular for staff, have regular meetings. Monthly.
Most people avoid confrontation. That's natural and probably relatable. To foster constructive confrontations, the absolute best you can do is to foster a safe, supported platform for communication. Allow members of staff, perhaps even Vet-FA, to submit points for an agenda prior to the meeting, then go through them. If there's nothing, grand, you've spent a few minutes to leave the meeting in the knowledge that you're right as rain.
 
In the vein of safe communication, foster good feedback philosophy. The gamenight debriefs are once again a marvellous illustration of that, but it can go further: Praise in public, criticise in private. People experienced in HR are rolling their eyes now.
Over the years, I have been told that I don't look like staff, that I'm too nice. Good! That means you haven't been invited to a private chat by me.
The rules only allow for so much direct action. You have your hackers and your teamkillers, but situations like the topic at hand are not rare, as uncomfortable as they are. The elephant in the room was difficult to navigate around, so I can wager it was easier to stay in one corner with the people already there.
 
Artemis noted that the division was apparent long ago. Sadly, it wasn't to me. I was frustrated with some AWE decisions, which I aired, and I just reckoned that some animosity from the sidelines stemmed from a disagreement about creative directions. There was some pushback to an unconventional gamenight idea, plus the minor squabble about event sign-ups.
 
The rest of it, the real of it, was not once brought to my attention besides a salient question by a dev in #mission-makers about using Discord Rich Presence of our own.
 
A meeting could have cleared this up many months ago. What's done is done, but just perhaps that's something to take forward.

The way this thread is going is grand. That's something to appreciate.
 
From what I read, a good part of the dissatisfaction about the unit stemmed from the mission makers for the drop in AW players. I understand that and I think I can relate to the feelings involved.
To slowly lead that into a suggestion, I would mention that I didn't play those missions because the themes didn't interest me. Vietnam is not my cup of tea, but I played a couple for the banter. Star Wars was three standard deviations removed from what I like, as was Halo. About Star Wars, at least, I let Siege know after a TS poke that it wasn't for me. I think a similar thing held true for other players, in that it just wasn't their interest.
 
So my suggestion is to have regular polls and meetings. Have polls to gauge interests in future campaign ideas. If you are satisfied with the responses even if small, everyone involved can set their expectations correctly. If you're not, lead that into a discussion about why the interest is low and be open-minded to drop or adjust the idea.
 
Similarly, in particular for staff, have regular meetings. Monthly.
Most people avoid confrontation. That's natural and probably relatable. To foster constructive confrontations, the absolute best you can do is to foster a safe, supported platform for communication. Allow members of staff, perhaps even Vet-FA, to submit points for an agenda prior to the meeting, then go through them. If there's nothing, grand, you've spent a few minutes to leave the meeting in the knowledge that you're right as rain.
 
In the vein of safe communication, foster good feedback philosophy. The gamenight debriefs are once again a marvellous illustration of that, but it can go further: Praise in public, criticise in private. People experienced in HR are rolling their eyes now.
Over the years, I have been told that I don't look like staff, that I'm too nice. Good! That means you haven't been invited to a private chat by me.
The rules only allow for so much direct action. You have your hackers and your teamkillers, but situations like the topic at hand are not rare, as uncomfortable as they are. The elephant in the room was difficult to navigate around, so I can wager it was easier to stay in one corner with the people already there.
 
Artemis noted that the division was apparent long ago. Sadly, it wasn't to me. I was frustrated with some AWE decisions, which I aired, and I just reckoned that some animosity from the sidelines stemmed from a disagreement about creative directions. There was some pushback to an unconventional gamenight idea, plus the minor squabble about event sign-ups.
 
The rest of it, the real of it, was not once brought to my attention besides a salient question by a dev in #mission-makers about using Discord Rich Presence of our own.
 
A meeting could have cleared this up many months ago. What's done is done, but just perhaps that's something to take forward.

I agree that a review of the rules is needed, but i do not see need for us to massively change them. They are clear and consise. The issue, seems to have stemmed more from the investigation procedure carried out. The reason the report was filed was for the investigation to occur, it would be wrong of us to not question the report, from all angles and ask questions that people do not like because that is often where the truth lies. 
 
I agree that discussion is needed. But like everyone else here, Core was not aware it was a big deal as it was never actually discussed with us as a team until the report was filed.

The way this thread is going is grand. That's something to appreciate.
 
From what I read, a good part of the dissatisfaction about the unit stemmed from the mission makers for the drop in AW players. I understand that and I think I can relate to the feelings involved.
To slowly lead that into a suggestion, I would mention that I didn't play those missions because the themes didn't interest me. Vietnam is not my cup of tea, but I played a couple for the banter. Star Wars was three standard deviations removed from what I like, as was Halo. About Star Wars, at least, I let Siege know after a TS poke that it wasn't for me. I think a similar thing held true for other players, in that it just wasn't their interest.
 
So my suggestion is to have regular polls and meetings. Have polls to gauge interests in future campaign ideas. If you are satisfied with the responses even if small, everyone involved can set their expectations correctly. If you're not, lead that into a discussion about why the interest is low and be open-minded to drop or adjust the idea.
 
Similarly, in particular for staff, have regular meetings. Monthly.
Most people avoid confrontation. That's natural and probably relatable. To foster constructive confrontations, the absolute best you can do is to foster a safe, supported platform for communication. Allow members of staff, perhaps even Vet-FA, to submit points for an agenda prior to the meeting, then go through them. If there's nothing, grand, you've spent a few minutes to leave the meeting in the knowledge that you're right as rain.
 
In the vein of safe communication, foster good feedback philosophy. The gamenight debriefs are once again a marvellous illustration of that, but it can go further: Praise in public, criticise in private. People experienced in HR are rolling their eyes now.
Over the years, I have been told that I don't look like staff, that I'm too nice. Good! That means you haven't been invited to a private chat by me.
The rules only allow for so much direct action. You have your hackers and your teamkillers, but situations like the topic at hand are not rare, as uncomfortable as they are. The elephant in the room was difficult to navigate around, so I can wager it was easier to stay in one corner with the people already there.
 
Artemis noted that the division was apparent long ago. Sadly, it wasn't to me. I was frustrated with some AWE decisions, which I aired, and I just reckoned that some animosity from the sidelines stemmed from a disagreement about creative directions. There was some pushback to an unconventional gamenight idea, plus the minor squabble about event sign-ups.
 
The rest of it, the real of it, was not once brought to my attention besides a salient question by a dev in #mission-makers about using Discord Rich Presence of our own.
 
A meeting could have cleared this up many months ago. What's done is done, but just perhaps that's something to take forward.

The way this thread is going is grand. That's something to appreciate.
 
From what I read, a good part of the dissatisfaction about the unit stemmed from the mission makers for the drop in AW players. I understand that and I think I can relate to the feelings involved.
To slowly lead that into a suggestion, I would mention that I didn't play those missions because the themes didn't interest me. Vietnam is not my cup of tea, but I played a couple for the banter. Star Wars was three standard deviations removed from what I like, as was Halo. About Star Wars, at least, I let Siege know after a TS poke that it wasn't for me. I think a similar thing held true for other players, in that it just wasn't their interest.
 
So my suggestion is to have regular polls and meetings. Have polls to gauge interests in future campaign ideas. If you are satisfied with the responses even if small, everyone involved can set their expectations correctly. If you're not, lead that into a discussion about why the interest is low and be open-minded to drop or adjust the idea.
 
Similarly, in particular for staff, have regular meetings. Monthly.
Most people avoid confrontation. That's natural and probably relatable. To foster constructive confrontations, the absolute best you can do is to foster a safe, supported platform for communication. Allow members of staff, perhaps even Vet-FA, to submit points for an agenda prior to the meeting, then go through them. If there's nothing, grand, you've spent a few minutes to leave the meeting in the knowledge that you're right as rain.
 
In the vein of safe communication, foster good feedback philosophy. The gamenight debriefs are once again a marvellous illustration of that, but it can go further: Praise in public, criticise in private. People experienced in HR are rolling their eyes now.
Over the years, I have been told that I don't look like staff, that I'm too nice. Good! That means you haven't been invited to a private chat by me.
The rules only allow for so much direct action. You have your hackers and your teamkillers, but situations like the topic at hand are not rare, as uncomfortable as they are. The elephant in the room was difficult to navigate around, so I can wager it was easier to stay in one corner with the people already there.
 
Artemis noted that the division was apparent long ago. Sadly, it wasn't to me. I was frustrated with some AWE decisions, which I aired, and I just reckoned that some animosity from the sidelines stemmed from a disagreement about creative directions. There was some pushback to an unconventional gamenight idea, plus the minor squabble about event sign-ups.
 
The rest of it, the real of it, was not once brought to my attention besides a salient question by a dev in #mission-makers about using Discord Rich Presence of our own.
 
A meeting could have cleared this up many months ago. What's done is done, but just perhaps that's something to take forward.

The way this thread is going is grand. That's something to appreciate.
 
From what I read, a good part of the dissatisfaction about the unit stemmed from the mission makers for the drop in AW players. I understand that and I think I can relate to the feelings involved.
To slowly lead that into a suggestion, I would mention that I didn't play those missions because the themes didn't interest me. Vietnam is not my cup of tea, but I played a couple for the banter. Star Wars was three standard deviations removed from what I like, as was Halo. About Star Wars, at least, I let Siege know after a TS poke that it wasn't for me. I think a similar thing held true for other players, in that it just wasn't their interest.
 
So my suggestion is to have regular polls and meetings. Have polls to gauge interests in future campaign ideas. If you are satisfied with the responses even if small, everyone involved can set their expectations correctly. If you're not, lead that into a discussion about why the interest is low and be open-minded to drop or adjust the idea.
 
Similarly, in particular for staff, have regular meetings. Monthly.
Most people avoid confrontation. That's natural and probably relatable. To foster constructive confrontations, the absolute best you can do is to foster a safe, supported platform for communication. Allow members of staff, perhaps even Vet-FA, to submit points for an agenda prior to the meeting, then go through them. If there's nothing, grand, you've spent a few minutes to leave the meeting in the knowledge that you're right as rain.
 
In the vein of safe communication, foster good feedback philosophy. The gamenight debriefs are once again a marvellous illustration of that, but it can go further: Praise in public, criticise in private. People experienced in HR are rolling their eyes now.
Over the years, I have been told that I don't look like staff, that I'm too nice. Good! That means you haven't been invited to a private chat by me.
The rules only allow for so much direct action. You have your hackers and your teamkillers, but situations like the topic at hand are not rare, as uncomfortable as they are. The elephant in the room was difficult to navigate around, so I can wager it was easier to stay in one corner with the people already there.
 
Artemis noted that the division was apparent long ago. Sadly, it wasn't to me. I was frustrated with some AWE decisions, which I aired, and I just reckoned that some animosity from the sidelines stemmed from a disagreement about creative directions. There was some pushback to an unconventional gamenight idea, plus the minor squabble about event sign-ups.
 
The rest of it, the real of it, was not once brought to my attention besides a salient question by a dev in #mission-makers about using Discord Rich Presence of our own.
 
A meeting could have cleared this up many months ago. What's done is done, but just perhaps that's something to take forward.

For those who care about this already, it will be no secret that I was one of the admins playing somewhere else and reported to be recruiting for that place.
 
One point in @Gambit's first post illustrates quite well how the situation was blown out of proportions based on falsehoods. The supposed multiple credible sources as stated in his post have conjectured an outside impression as fact. Frankly I would suspect this is the theme for most of the situation up to the report. No, you don't get admin or Zeus for collecting medals.
 
From there, I would like to start identifying the crux of it. Several people have already duly pointed it out: Communication.
I have been playing with that unit since the end of January. In these five months, I had had no points of communication from any other member of staff as to the nature of my stay there nor that I was to stop. It was a known secret from the start, but I had no qualms about it. I joined it during a phase of AW gamenights that did not interest me, such as Star Wars, and I had been itching to play larger-scale missions. My intention from the start was to enjoy one or two of those a month, having laid out a schedule for myself to play D&D on Sundays, clashing with the big missions there, and split myself for one event in both, here on AW and there.
 
Here I will point out that the Discord Rich Presence mod was active twice in my case, when I had forgotten to disable it.
 
At one point, I made good on a promise I had given a good friend to teach them about team leadership and tactics. I figured it's easier with a team to demonstrate with, so I invited others who have expressed interest in learning about it on their own accord. We did this on my local machine while on the AW TS. There was no affiliation with the other unit. Neither was there any semblance of milsim advocating besides trying to teach something proper, to pass on as playing by example like the AWE Veteran Programme already attempts to foster.
 
Afterwards, I was told that an outside party was not happy with this. I figured they just wanted to be kept in the loop, so I noted that for next time, created a staff post asking what we think about trainings moving forward and closed that book. Had it been a big deal, I thought, I would have been approached about it. I was not.
 
During all of this I was actively aiding the development of Frontlines spearheaded only by Dom and myself. Outreach under my lead was set to begin a new initiative of social engagement and even art commissions.
I can say without qualms once again that my interests lay squarely with AW.
 
Still a month before the report, I pinged Core Staff in a staff Discord channel in a rather inconsiderate manner to point out a lack of communication regarding AWE matters. This was minutes before an Outreach meeting and I was in voice chat with staff who were not in the other unit. Due to my frustration, I mentioned how refreshing it was to have good communication at the other place, naming it clearly in the knowledge it was already an open secret. I outlined their procedures and philosophy and held them in high regard during this.
 
I still hope and stand by my opinion that we can discuss the accomplishments and shortfalls of other communities by virtue of example, without taking it as advocating for or against migrating.
 
For several days surrounding this, but particularly a few days later, I noticed that a member of Core Staff was shadowing us on TS. When I switched channels, so did they, but they never spoke up. I had my TS set up to connect me to the Admin Atoll, because it is a better look than sitting in AFK-ish since I looked able to respond to inquiries. As soon as somebody else was in there with me, so was the member of CS. At one point thereafter, they sprang on the exact moment I was alone and started to interrogate me about supposed slandering of CS or recruiting for the other unit. This is recorded.
 
This was the first time I had ever heard this was a concern. It was a decidedly dysfunctional way to begin the conversation.
 
It was also the last time there was any attempt at communication prior to the report. I offered. I got no response.
 
The report itself has been discussed at length in the thread. I don't know its contents or what incident it refers to.
 
For me, none of this was ever a personal matter. It still isn't. The report was made with the right intentions and I will support it, because I have all faith that it was made from genuine concern.
 
The report simply enabled a pervasive grudge working its way through the backstage to be brought to the foreground.
 
When I resigned, I left an open letter to staff and in it mentioned in what light I came to see AhoyWorld. It's a place of mates. It's a place to meet new people, hear new voices and the stories they tell when you otherwise wouldn't. Most gaming communities get their people through active recruiting. Very few places live off their innate draw, yet AW does. You want to stay for the people, because AW is not competing as the best. It doesn't pretend to be either.
 
When I realised I am serving as a wedge to drive people apart, I chose to leave. If there's a regret I have about this, it's that my wedge-like state wasn't communicated to me earlier for me to leave earlier.
 
In the end, I would like to echo a sentiment from my resignation and I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up verbatim.
 
When I first came back last year, could you imagine my delight when everyone stayed for the gamenight debrief? There was feedback, criticism, praise. Every single game turned into an opportunity to be better than the one before.
If nothing else, I would ask to carry that spirit forward into more of what you do. Talk. Find common ground and define boundaries. Lift each other up through adversity and confrontation by knowing you will get through it when you realise you're rigging the same ship.
 
There's my naval pun in an otherwise far too dry post.

Yesterday was the first I heard of this, so I dont have all the facts and all of that.
I've been trying to comment on this since yesterday, but I find it really difficult and I don't know what to say. 
It kinda feels like i'm the child of some messy divorce

That being said, its important to me that AhoyWorld is an open community where you are free to roam between here and other places, even as staff.
No one can force anyone to stay here.
As long as you are doing your job as staff here as well as expected of you, then you can do whatever you want wherever you want as long as you are not representing AW.
Whether you can take on staff roles at other places aswell, might be a different story, but I don't think that has happened here? 
 
I would also like to say that no one can blame the one making the report.
A report is simply saying that "Hello, there is something here I think you should have a look at. Here is what I see, do what you would like with this information".
It's then up to the ones who receive this report to decide what to do with it and how to deal with it.
 
I cannot say anything about how the case was handled, as I first learned of it yesterday.
What I will say is that I think there should be a full postmortem with a blameless root cause analysis where you go over why this happened, why the outcome became as it did (And what the outcome is, I don't feel like this has fully played out yet), and what we should do to prevent this in the future.
This has to be led by corestaff (Or a mediator, but they would need full access to the report and all the closed forums involved in this).
It would also have to include the reporter, the one being reported on, all the corestaff and anyone who decided to step down and leave, in order to get the full picture.
 
I would like to challenge all the involved party members to participate in this as it will help not only AW grow, but the whole arma community. (It might also be good for all the parties to get to talk together with everyone having good intentions)
 
Lastly, I would like to say that while this sucks, there are a lot of people here showing a lot of emotions, which tells me one thing:
WE ALL CARE DEEPLY FOR AHOYWORLD!
We might not always agree on the path we should take or how to get there, but in the end, I see a whole lot of people that care a lot and that is good.
It also means that tempers flare sometimes and feelings get the upper hand.
We are all humans, we all make mistakes, including staff.
 
 

Alright, now that this has calmed down a bit: What can we learn from this? What steps can we take to avoid such situations in the future?
 
For instance, it seems to me(*) that some of the rules should be reconsidered, updated, adjusted and clarified (after appropriate community discussion).
I am also under the impression that it would be beneficial to define mandatory procedures and requirements for Admin Reports and Staff Demotions, ideally as part of the rules.
 
What do you think?
 
(*) I was not involved in this conflict and did not know it existed until yesterday.

Unfortunately that now seems like a necessity.
 
Realistically it should have been in place (and might have) from the start but it now seems inevitable that it is needed.
 
(I'm also in the same boat and don't know all the details as I can only see the fallout.)
 
As I was going to check out the discord before reconnecting and playing for a bit I noticed people were missing. And that should be the first tell. People shouldn't be missing. Just a thought.
 
That being said I hate to see old friends and people I respect fighting and bickering like this.
 
I really hope you all manage to find a solution here and return to something like it used to be.
 
Just my 2p

For those who care about this already, it will be no secret that I was one of the admins playing somewhere else and reported to be recruiting for that place.
 
One point in @Gambit's first post illustrates quite well how the situation was blown out of proportions based on falsehoods. The supposed multiple credible sources as stated in his post have conjectured an outside impression as fact. Frankly I would suspect this is the theme for most of the situation up to the report. No, you don't get admin or Zeus for collecting medals.
 
From there, I would like to start identifying the crux of it. Several people have already duly pointed it out: Communication.
I have been playing with that unit since the end of January. In these five months, I had had no points of communication from any other member of staff as to the nature of my stay there nor that I was to stop. It was a known secret from the start, but I had no qualms about it. I joined it during a phase of AW gamenights that did not interest me, such as Star Wars, and I had been itching to play larger-scale missions. My intention from the start was to enjoy one or two of those a month, having laid out a schedule for myself to play D&D on Sundays, clashing with the big missions there, and split myself for one event in both, here on AW and there.
 
Here I will point out that the Discord Rich Presence mod was active twice in my case, when I had forgotten to disable it.
 
At one point, I made good on a promise I had given a good friend to teach them about team leadership and tactics. I figured it's easier with a team to demonstrate with, so I invited others who have expressed interest in learning about it on their own accord. We did this on my local machine while on the AW TS. There was no affiliation with the other unit. Neither was there any semblance of milsim advocating besides trying to teach something proper, to pass on as playing by example like the AWE Veteran Programme already attempts to foster.
 
Afterwards, I was told that an outside party was not happy with this. I figured they just wanted to be kept in the loop, so I noted that for next time, created a staff post asking what we think about trainings moving forward and closed that book. Had it been a big deal, I thought, I would have been approached about it. I was not.
 
During all of this I was actively aiding the development of Frontlines spearheaded only by Dom and myself. Outreach under my lead was set to begin a new initiative of social engagement and even art commissions.
I can say without qualms once again that my interests lay squarely with AW.
 
Still a month before the report, I pinged Core Staff in a staff Discord channel in a rather inconsiderate manner to point out a lack of communication regarding AWE matters. This was minutes before an Outreach meeting and I was in voice chat with staff who were not in the other unit. Due to my frustration, I mentioned how refreshing it was to have good communication at the other place, naming it clearly in the knowledge it was already an open secret. I outlined their procedures and philosophy and held them in high regard during this.
 
I still hope and stand by my opinion that we can discuss the accomplishments and shortfalls of other communities by virtue of example, without taking it as advocating for or against migrating.
 
For several days surrounding this, but particularly a few days later, I noticed that a member of Core Staff was shadowing us on TS. When I switched channels, so did they, but they never spoke up. I had my TS set up to connect me to the Admin Atoll, because it is a better look than sitting in AFK-ish since I looked able to respond to inquiries. As soon as somebody else was in there with me, so was the member of CS. At one point thereafter, they sprang on the exact moment I was alone and started to interrogate me about supposed slandering of CS or recruiting for the other unit. This is recorded.
 
This was the first time I had ever heard this was a concern. It was a decidedly dysfunctional way to begin the conversation.
 
It was also the last time there was any attempt at communication prior to the report. I offered. I got no response.
 
The report itself has been discussed at length in the thread. I don't know its contents or what incident it refers to.
 
For me, none of this was ever a personal matter. It still isn't. The report was made with the right intentions and I will support it, because I have all faith that it was made from genuine concern.
 
The report simply enabled a pervasive grudge working its way through the backstage to be brought to the foreground.
 
When I resigned, I left an open letter to staff and in it mentioned in what light I came to see AhoyWorld. It's a place of mates. It's a place to meet new people, hear new voices and the stories they tell when you otherwise wouldn't. Most gaming communities get their people through active recruiting. Very few places live off their innate draw, yet AW does. You want to stay for the people, because AW is not competing as the best. It doesn't pretend to be either.
 
When I realised I am serving as a wedge to drive people apart, I chose to leave. If there's a regret I have about this, it's that my wedge-like state wasn't communicated to me earlier for me to leave earlier.
 
In the end, I would like to echo a sentiment from my resignation and I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up verbatim.
 
When I first came back last year, could you imagine my delight when everyone stayed for the gamenight debrief? There was feedback, criticism, praise. Every single game turned into an opportunity to be better than the one before.
If nothing else, I would ask to carry that spirit forward into more of what you do. Talk. Find common ground and define boundaries. Lift each other up through adversity and confrontation by knowing you will get through it when you realise you're rigging the same ship.
 
There's my naval pun in an otherwise far too dry post.

For those who care about this already, it will be no secret that I was one of the admins playing somewhere else and reported to be recruiting for that place.
 
One point in @Gambit's first post illustrates quite well how the situation was blown out of proportions based on falsehoods. The supposed multiple credible sources as stated in his post have conjectured an outside impression as fact. Frankly I would suspect this is the theme for most of the situation up to the report. No, you don't get admin or Zeus for collecting medals.
 
From there, I would like to start identifying the crux of it. Several people have already duly pointed it out: Communication.
I have been playing with that unit since the end of January. In these five months, I had had no points of communication from any other member of staff as to the nature of my stay there nor that I was to stop. It was a known secret from the start, but I had no qualms about it. I joined it during a phase of AW gamenights that did not interest me, such as Star Wars, and I had been itching to play larger-scale missions. My intention from the start was to enjoy one or two of those a month, having laid out a schedule for myself to play D&D on Sundays, clashing with the big missions there, and split myself for one event in both, here on AW and there.
 
Here I will point out that the Discord Rich Presence mod was active twice in my case, when I had forgotten to disable it.
 
At one point, I made good on a promise I had given a good friend to teach them about team leadership and tactics. I figured it's easier with a team to demonstrate with, so I invited others who have expressed interest in learning about it on their own accord. We did this on my local machine while on the AW TS. There was no affiliation with the other unit. Neither was there any semblance of milsim advocating besides trying to teach something proper, to pass on as playing by example like the AWE Veteran Programme already attempts to foster.
 
Afterwards, I was told that an outside party was not happy with this. I figured they just wanted to be kept in the loop, so I noted that for next time, created a staff post asking what we think about trainings moving forward and closed that book. Had it been a big deal, I thought, I would have been approached about it. I was not.
 
During all of this I was actively aiding the development of Frontlines spearheaded only by Dom and myself. Outreach under my lead was set to begin a new initiative of social engagement and even art commissions.
I can say without qualms once again that my interests lay squarely with AW.
 
Still a month before the report, I pinged Core Staff in a staff Discord channel in a rather inconsiderate manner to point out a lack of communication regarding AWE matters. This was minutes before an Outreach meeting and I was in voice chat with staff who were not in the other unit. Due to my frustration, I mentioned how refreshing it was to have good communication at the other place, naming it clearly in the knowledge it was already an open secret. I outlined their procedures and philosophy and held them in high regard during this.
 
I still hope and stand by my opinion that we can discuss the accomplishments and shortfalls of other communities by virtue of example, without taking it as advocating for or against migrating.
 
For several days surrounding this, but particularly a few days later, I noticed that a member of Core Staff was shadowing us on TS. When I switched channels, so did they, but they never spoke up. I had my TS set up to connect me to the Admin Atoll, because it is a better look than sitting in AFK-ish since I looked able to respond to inquiries. As soon as somebody else was in there with me, so was the member of CS. At one point thereafter, they sprang on the exact moment I was alone and started to interrogate me about supposed slandering of CS or recruiting for the other unit. This is recorded.
 
This was the first time I had ever heard this was a concern. It was a decidedly dysfunctional way to begin the conversation.
 
It was also the last time there was any attempt at communication prior to the report. I offered. I got no response.
 
The report itself has been discussed at length in the thread. I don't know its contents or what incident it refers to.
 
For me, none of this was ever a personal matter. It still isn't. The report was made with the right intentions and I will support it, because I have all faith that it was made from genuine concern.
 
The report simply enabled a pervasive grudge working its way through the backstage to be brought to the foreground.
 
When I resigned, I left an open letter to staff and in it mentioned in what light I came to see AhoyWorld. It's a place of mates. It's a place to meet new people, hear new voices and the stories they tell when you otherwise wouldn't. Most gaming communities get their people through active recruiting. Very few places live off their innate draw, yet AW does. You want to stay for the people, because AW is not competing as the best. It doesn't pretend to be either.
 
When I realised I am serving as a wedge to drive people apart, I chose to leave. If there's a regret I have about this, it's that my wedge-like state wasn't communicated to me earlier for me to leave earlier.
 
In the end, I would like to echo a sentiment from my resignation and I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up verbatim.
 
When I first came back last year, could you imagine my delight when everyone stayed for the gamenight debrief? There was feedback, criticism, praise. Every single game turned into an opportunity to be better than the one before.
If nothing else, I would ask to carry that spirit forward into more of what you do. Talk. Find common ground and define boundaries. Lift each other up through adversity and confrontation by knowing you will get through it when you realise you're rigging the same ship.
 
There's my naval pun in an otherwise far too dry post.

For those who care about this already, it will be no secret that I was one of the admins playing somewhere else and reported to be recruiting for that place.
 
One point in @Gambit's first post illustrates quite well how the situation was blown out of proportions based on falsehoods. The supposed multiple credible sources as stated in his post have conjectured an outside impression as fact. Frankly I would suspect this is the theme for most of the situation up to the report. No, you don't get admin or Zeus for collecting medals.
 
From there, I would like to start identifying the crux of it. Several people have already duly pointed it out: Communication.
I have been playing with that unit since the end of January. In these five months, I had had no points of communication from any other member of staff as to the nature of my stay there nor that I was to stop. It was a known secret from the start, but I had no qualms about it. I joined it during a phase of AW gamenights that did not interest me, such as Star Wars, and I had been itching to play larger-scale missions. My intention from the start was to enjoy one or two of those a month, having laid out a schedule for myself to play D&D on Sundays, clashing with the big missions there, and split myself for one event in both, here on AW and there.
 
Here I will point out that the Discord Rich Presence mod was active twice in my case, when I had forgotten to disable it.
 
At one point, I made good on a promise I had given a good friend to teach them about team leadership and tactics. I figured it's easier with a team to demonstrate with, so I invited others who have expressed interest in learning about it on their own accord. We did this on my local machine while on the AW TS. There was no affiliation with the other unit. Neither was there any semblance of milsim advocating besides trying to teach something proper, to pass on as playing by example like the AWE Veteran Programme already attempts to foster.
 
Afterwards, I was told that an outside party was not happy with this. I figured they just wanted to be kept in the loop, so I noted that for next time, created a staff post asking what we think about trainings moving forward and closed that book. Had it been a big deal, I thought, I would have been approached about it. I was not.
 
During all of this I was actively aiding the development of Frontlines spearheaded only by Dom and myself. Outreach under my lead was set to begin a new initiative of social engagement and even art commissions.
I can say without qualms once again that my interests lay squarely with AW.
 
Still a month before the report, I pinged Core Staff in a staff Discord channel in a rather inconsiderate manner to point out a lack of communication regarding AWE matters. This was minutes before an Outreach meeting and I was in voice chat with staff who were not in the other unit. Due to my frustration, I mentioned how refreshing it was to have good communication at the other place, naming it clearly in the knowledge it was already an open secret. I outlined their procedures and philosophy and held them in high regard during this.
 
I still hope and stand by my opinion that we can discuss the accomplishments and shortfalls of other communities by virtue of example, without taking it as advocating for or against migrating.
 
For several days surrounding this, but particularly a few days later, I noticed that a member of Core Staff was shadowing us on TS. When I switched channels, so did they, but they never spoke up. I had my TS set up to connect me to the Admin Atoll, because it is a better look than sitting in AFK-ish since I looked able to respond to inquiries. As soon as somebody else was in there with me, so was the member of CS. At one point thereafter, they sprang on the exact moment I was alone and started to interrogate me about supposed slandering of CS or recruiting for the other unit. This is recorded.
 
This was the first time I had ever heard this was a concern. It was a decidedly dysfunctional way to begin the conversation.
 
It was also the last time there was any attempt at communication prior to the report. I offered. I got no response.
 
The report itself has been discussed at length in the thread. I don't know its contents or what incident it refers to.
 
For me, none of this was ever a personal matter. It still isn't. The report was made with the right intentions and I will support it, because I have all faith that it was made from genuine concern.
 
The report simply enabled a pervasive grudge working its way through the backstage to be brought to the foreground.
 
When I resigned, I left an open letter to staff and in it mentioned in what light I came to see AhoyWorld. It's a place of mates. It's a place to meet new people, hear new voices and the stories they tell when you otherwise wouldn't. Most gaming communities get their people through active recruiting. Very few places live off their innate draw, yet AW does. You want to stay for the people, because AW is not competing as the best. It doesn't pretend to be either.
 
When I realised I am serving as a wedge to drive people apart, I chose to leave. If there's a regret I have about this, it's that my wedge-like state wasn't communicated to me earlier for me to leave earlier.
 
In the end, I would like to echo a sentiment from my resignation and I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up verbatim.
 
When I first came back last year, could you imagine my delight when everyone stayed for the gamenight debrief? There was feedback, criticism, praise. Every single game turned into an opportunity to be better than the one before.
If nothing else, I would ask to carry that spirit forward into more of what you do. Talk. Find common ground and define boundaries. Lift each other up through adversity and confrontation by knowing you will get through it when you realise you're rigging the same ship.
 
There's my naval pun in an otherwise far too dry post.

For those who care about this already, it will be no secret that I was one of the admins playing somewhere else and reported to be recruiting for that place.
 
One point in @Gambit's first post illustrates quite well how the situation was blown out of proportions based on falsehoods. The supposed multiple credible sources as stated in his post have conjectured an outside impression as fact. Frankly I would suspect this is the theme for most of the situation up to the report. No, you don't get admin or Zeus for collecting medals.
 
From there, I would like to start identifying the crux of it. Several people have already duly pointed it out: Communication.
I have been playing with that unit since the end of January. In these five months, I had had no points of communication from any other member of staff as to the nature of my stay there nor that I was to stop. It was a known secret from the start, but I had no qualms about it. I joined it during a phase of AW gamenights that did not interest me, such as Star Wars, and I had been itching to play larger-scale missions. My intention from the start was to enjoy one or two of those a month, having laid out a schedule for myself to play D&D on Sundays, clashing with the big missions there, and split myself for one event in both, here on AW and there.
 
Here I will point out that the Discord Rich Presence mod was active twice in my case, when I had forgotten to disable it.
 
At one point, I made good on a promise I had given a good friend to teach them about team leadership and tactics. I figured it's easier with a team to demonstrate with, so I invited others who have expressed interest in learning about it on their own accord. We did this on my local machine while on the AW TS. There was no affiliation with the other unit. Neither was there any semblance of milsim advocating besides trying to teach something proper, to pass on as playing by example like the AWE Veteran Programme already attempts to foster.
 
Afterwards, I was told that an outside party was not happy with this. I figured they just wanted to be kept in the loop, so I noted that for next time, created a staff post asking what we think about trainings moving forward and closed that book. Had it been a big deal, I thought, I would have been approached about it. I was not.
 
During all of this I was actively aiding the development of Frontlines spearheaded only by Dom and myself. Outreach under my lead was set to begin a new initiative of social engagement and even art commissions.
I can say without qualms once again that my interests lay squarely with AW.
 
Still a month before the report, I pinged Core Staff in a staff Discord channel in a rather inconsiderate manner to point out a lack of communication regarding AWE matters. This was minutes before an Outreach meeting and I was in voice chat with staff who were not in the other unit. Due to my frustration, I mentioned how refreshing it was to have good communication at the other place, naming it clearly in the knowledge it was already an open secret. I outlined their procedures and philosophy and held them in high regard during this.
 
I still hope and stand by my opinion that we can discuss the accomplishments and shortfalls of other communities by virtue of example, without taking it as advocating for or against migrating.
 
For several days surrounding this, but particularly a few days later, I noticed that a member of Core Staff was shadowing us on TS. When I switched channels, so did they, but they never spoke up. I had my TS set up to connect me to the Admin Atoll, because it is a better look than sitting in AFK-ish since I looked able to respond to inquiries. As soon as somebody else was in there with me, so was the member of CS. At one point thereafter, they sprang on the exact moment I was alone and started to interrogate me about supposed slandering of CS or recruiting for the other unit. This is recorded.
 
This was the first time I had ever heard this was a concern. It was a decidedly dysfunctional way to begin the conversation.
 
It was also the last time there was any attempt at communication prior to the report. I offered. I got no response.
 
The report itself has been discussed at length in the thread. I don't know its contents or what incident it refers to.
 
For me, none of this was ever a personal matter. It still isn't. The report was made with the right intentions and I will support it, because I have all faith that it was made from genuine concern.
 
The report simply enabled a pervasive grudge working its way through the backstage to be brought to the foreground.
 
When I resigned, I left an open letter to staff and in it mentioned in what light I came to see AhoyWorld. It's a place of mates. It's a place to meet new people, hear new voices and the stories they tell when you otherwise wouldn't. Most gaming communities get their people through active recruiting. Very few places live off their innate draw, yet AW does. You want to stay for the people, because AW is not competing as the best. It doesn't pretend to be either.
 
When I realised I am serving as a wedge to drive people apart, I chose to leave. If there's a regret I have about this, it's that my wedge-like state wasn't communicated to me earlier for me to leave earlier.
 
In the end, I would like to echo a sentiment from my resignation and I wouldn't be surprised if it ends up verbatim.
 
When I first came back last year, could you imagine my delight when everyone stayed for the gamenight debrief? There was feedback, criticism, praise. Every single game turned into an opportunity to be better than the one before.
If nothing else, I would ask to carry that spirit forward into more of what you do. Talk. Find common ground and define boundaries. Lift each other up through adversity and confrontation by knowing you will get through it when you realise you're rigging the same ship.
 
There's my naval pun in an otherwise far too dry post.