An open letter of the problems within Ahoyworld

[Stanhope]

3 minutes ago, Numbnuts said:

I have seen you threaten a non member on AWE cause he accidently got in the gunner seat of a vehicle that can take 2 gunners when it was pointed out to him what he had done he immediately switched and jokingly said "you didn't see anything" at which point you threatened him with the fact you were recording.

I have never intentionally threaded anyone with the fact that i was recording.  I do occasionally mention that i record.  I never ever have had the intent to threaten anyone with the fact that i was recording.  Most of the times i mention that i'm recording is when someone asks or to someone who feels the same way about something as me.
I cannot recall the situation you're describing here, i also don't keep my recordings for more than a week or so as i primarily record to save my own ass.  

 

If you want to condemn me one 1 comment i made in the entire time i've been here, that's your choice, i'm not going to stop you.  I'm happy to talk to you about it and explain a few things to you, enter in a dialog but it's your opinion.  

 

9 minutes ago, Numbnuts said:

if you expect any member of the community to treat you like a dependable member of staff like we did with teddy copey and shadowknight that is not going to happen.

Well in AWE i obviously don't expect you to.  I'm just any other player in there so why should you?  In the rest of AW, that's up to you. 

 

Now i don't exactly know what you mean with "a dependable member of staff".  If you ask me to do something for I&A development and it's reasonable and doable i'll do it.  If I say that (on EU1,2) I'll deal with a TKer I will.

 

[Karate Pyjamas]

2 hours ago, J0hnson said:

• Stanhope is far from the worst AW staff member we've had, if his "reports" have no great consequences and (from what I've been told) only focus on smaller issues then why is that reporting an issue at all? It's not like hes getting anyone banned behind their back (so long as they get a chance to speak their side or be given fair warning should a great number of these small issues build up on one player). With how I currently see AW, I would highly hope long-term, faithful and commonly rule-abiding players would not be banned over tiny issues.

 

When a player is reported it is reviewed by staff and discussed, many a time we choose not to sanction because it's such a minor detail that we feel that it will just blow over and everyone will get along the next day. When a player is dragged aside and warned or on the verge of a larger sanction like a ban we always inquire with both the reporting player and the player who is assumed to be in violation. We listen to both sides and are happy to give the benefit of the doubt when proper arguments are in place and things are handled in a mature way. We're quite forgiving when it comes to AWE because the player base is quite close.

Honestly, we don't want to ban anyone, that would be ideal. Because we all know you guys and you guys all know us. But there are times when things just get taken too far and someone needs to sit in the corner for a week or two to relax and overthink their actions. While everyone has their opinions about others I observe that personal grudges are really not an issue and things are handled very professionally without taking sides prematurely or at all.

Even though some of you have already made your decision to move on, perhaps such a backlash was needed to really get the ball rolling, so please, give us a chance to improve and handle all your complaints. It shouldn't be needed to have such a backlash to get things going at all, but it happened and I think that all of the staff agrees that we are very sorry it has had to come this far and that we are very willing to improve and take this as a lesson and not have it happen again.

Lastly I'd like to give my personal opinion:
All things said and the huge backlash and pitchforks do hurt me. As far as I know, I do my job and I do it well, seeing the forums spammed with memes and hurtful comments hits me too. I understand a lot of the anger, but please take some of your comments into consideration.

[ansin11]

It appears as though my point has still not managed to reach readers. I frankly don't give a lot if I get kicked, it is also a coincidence that both times it was done by @Stanhope, whom I personally like, but what I was trying to illustrate and get across was that I, as a player who has been around for a while, don't think that the current way of community managment works. Things are being done that shouldn't be done, things are being done without proper communication and basic social skills and other things that need to be done are not being done.

 

The way I see it is that the staff team consists of trusted individuals the community deemed fit to ensure an overall environment that allows everybody a fair amount of fun, mutual respect and so on. Basically a community service. So what I was trying to tell you and show you is that lately, a noticeable amount of staff members have forgotten about this.

 

Sometimes rules are enforced for the rules' sake and not for the community's sake, but what good are rules, made to ensure a healthy community environment, without a community? You can't put the rules or what staff thinks is a good idea before what the community thinks, at least not if you want to maintain AW's wide range.

Yes, the rules have been enforced, player ansin11 was kicked. His actions had - as far as I can tell - no impact on other players, the asset he wasted is of hardly any value due to its immediate respawn and a rule was enforced, a rule that is commonly not reinforced, hence why most crashed aircraft are just blown to respawn. Why is it not reinforced a lot? Because the server population doesn't benefit from a bunch of broken helicopters scattered around the map. The rule exists, to be there when you need it because somebody is actually wasting one asset after the other and needs to be stopped in order to assure that other players can still make use of these assets. The question was "Was a rule broken?", but it actually should be "Is it necessary to enforce a rule in order to [...]?".

Community / server rules are not like traffic regulations that need to be followed and enforced because lifes, injury and property damage are at stake, but, at least this is the way I see it, these rules should exist so that the staff can refer to them when it is necessary while at the same time making sure that when action is necessary, that action is equal for every player it is taken against. The question "Was a rule broken?" can be answered by a computer. If you want to manage the community based on that question you can replace all executive staff roles with a computer. But you can't govern a playerbase, because they just want to play and have fun, so by replacing the executive with computers you take away the space most humans need in order to enjoy their stay and at that point you might as well have computers replace the playerbase as well.

 

I always get lost somewhere along my lengthy explanations...

 

If I want you to understand one thing it is that, at least on the public servers, what the staff team or individuals from the staff team want or like is irrelevant. The players are only there to play, and you will have to respect whichever way each player chooses to do so. If his or her way is having a negative impact on other player's ways or possible ways then it is your job to restore balance. It's a public server and a variety of different people play on it. If you control it (too much), (too much) of the laid-back fun gets lost. Don't control it, just keep provide the necessary balance.

 

Perhaps it helps if I outline the contrast of today's EU1 vs. when I got to know it. When I first came to I & A I could not fly whatsoever. I crashlanded more often than I touched down without any orange components, and various staff members watched it. I got tips and practice time, I killed many players with my crashes and I blew up more damaged helicopters than the server has slots, but all sanctions taken against me have been taken within 2017, and as of 2017 I could outfly or equal the vast majority of public pilots. AW has become decreasingly welcoming and forgiving towards the unaware. Rule enforcement and staff presence on public servers appeared, from my perspective, increasingly random. Back when I was still wasting assets like I was getting paid for it, the staff team on EU1 were regulars, people you knew, they were active in the ingame chat. But since that generation of staff has been replaced, it started to appear to me as though the newly recruited staff members were always the most active and / or the loudest on TS; forgive me if I'm wrong. They all run tags but you can't tell what tag you need for your problem, nobody knows why they need so many different tags and why they are collecting them like they were following some kind of carreer. Tags "Zeus" and "Admin" would be enough if you ask me, but whatever. Speaking of TS, they change that to force push-to-talk for everybody by default. The first time I brought friends over to the TS to play with them I messaged just about four different people to get voice activation for my friends who thought their mics were broken.

 

Since I'm already sitting here typing I might as well keep going, so if @PiranhA meant me with any of this, I tell you that I could just be like @TheScar and not give anything about AW and only use the public servers provided to play a cooperative mission I happen to enjoy. But as you can read I am not doing so.

13 hours ago, PiranhA said:

Could be the age, as ive seen kids "talk" like this before but i feel it isnt the case here.

Some people here dont know how to properly communicate on a mature level and to be honest, only mini so far hasnt been completely talking shit.

 

Its very easy to jump the bandwagon against Stan right here and now, nice and from a distance huh? What i think is: 

For those shouting from the sideline and never done anything productively for this community: you have no reason to talk here.

For those who have put in time and efford, i do see a reason in comments tho this is too late. What you put here to pay him back at stan or ahoy is something you guys should do waaaay earlier as feedback on the forum instead of in a private channel in TS.

 

And:

If you really have some balls you go talk with the one you having a problem with, privately talk with them, instead talking in a group about him/her. Being honest and fair feels vulnerable but requires more balls and brain as being the popular guy but i bet there will be a few left who are capable of being this mature.

 

I was thinking about making my own post, ever since the thing with the broken refuel script happened, because at this point I could no longer ignore it, but I chose not to, because I don't think enough people and especially not the necessary ones would even read such a post or agree with my way of seeing things. If you believe I have no reason to talk here, so be it, if you believe its too late to talk now, so be it, but I am talking here because I want to add my opinion to a pretty critical and urgent topic.

[PiranhA]

Hello @ansin11 I know the @TheScar and im really good with him, i was one of the few who stood up for him on many topics. I speak to him regularly and we dont have any problems, even better, scar asked me a few months to join him on his trip in the netherlands during the Worldcup female soccer. So yeah, i know him pretty well and hes a strange but ok guy. And i tell you, the scar does care about ahoy, he really does but dosnt admit it, right scar?

 

Now about my post, it wasnt posted toward any person in particular as i dont have any personal problems with anyone. Never had over here except once, but it was solved on a mature and constructive manner. I do find it cheap, immature and very unresponsible how (some) people here go after Stan, the guy is doing everything with best intentions. 

 

A lot of shit came up the past 24h and i do agree with some. But talking about ahoyworld not beingt transparent and needing better communication in ...for pete's sake ... another teamspeak, about some subjects totally new to the staff, its just hypocryte. Month ago in teamspeak a meeting on the go, were everybody was negative on ahoy, a paper would be presented for the staff, it never happend. It never happend.

 

Communication goes 2 ways, sender and receiver. Multiple options if comms dont go well, in this case, it takes 2(groups).

[Eagle-Eye]

Have read the whole topic, but won't reply to anything because I'm not "in the know" enough, except this:

16 hours ago, Minipily said:

There has also been the discussions between "Group A" and "Group B" and how we can come together as a community to make both sides work. For those that do not know:

 

Group A - "The rules should absolutely be followed all the time, and that fun is had when everyone is following the rules"

Group B - "The rules should be followed when it makes sense to follow them, otherwise they can be ignored / bent when it's reasonable or fun to do so."

 

In my experience, you just can't combine the two.

I'm part of an online flight sim network (built and supported by volunteers only as well) for over a decade now. Back when I started, its member base belonged mainly (maybe even only) to Group A. They wanted to do things just like in real life, and had the rules, procedures, training, ... set up as such.

Around 2010, members from Group B began joining the network in larger numbers. They just wanted to fly and didn't need / want all those strict procedures, didn't care about training etc. In 2011 or 2012, the networks motto became "realistic, within limits".

 

Nowadays, both groups hate each other to such extent that people go out of their way on the network (incl. disconnecting) to avoid someone they know belongs to the other group. At least once a week, there's a topic somewhere on the forum where a member from Group A complains about actions from someone in Group B, or vice versa...

 

Admittedly, it has worked for a while, but something always festers in the community's underbelly and in the past 5 years, that network has been very close to imploding several times because of those differences (last time was less than a month ago)

I'm almost certain the same will eventually happen to AWE, if it hasn't already. If in any way, this is then how my reply links to this topic as a whole.. I'm just putting a theory out here now, but maybe Stanhope belongs to Group A, the thread starter belongs to Group B, and the personal beef between them is because Stanhope is (or was) in a position where he can / needs / is expected to enforce the rules, whereas other members from Group A are not?

 

Once again, I don't know either one enough and haven't been on AWE for months, so it's just a theory.

[Vlk]

My view on recent events. Ill make it short. (i Failed)

 

Who am i? Ive played on awe since launch. Ive been a regular player, been in the staff team as a eu3 moderator and some other community roles, so i had a foot in both camps.

 

1. Why did i leave the staff? well i got things irl that needed the time and i got tired of certain aspects of approaching troublemakers. My patience is shorter than others. I said i could come back into the team if it was needed when i got my shit toghether and had cooled of. I was met by arrogance in the team and i dont like ppl who are arrogant. Especially when this apparently was in a period aw could use ppl who have a broad network among the awe players. so shame on you. lot of years in the community and being met like this.. well.. I dont cry but i find it odd. 

 

2. What did i learn? What the staff/moderators/admin does is not always visible to the community. i would say 15% is visible to the public by forums posts and repo updates. There is ALOT of discussions, planning and strategy being done on a platform called telegram. It could be up to 300 messages pr day regarding everything from player interactions (i will not mention names, Fr4ggl01d etc) to varius topics raised by the community in the forums or via chatter on ts/ingame.

 

The community might not feel they been heard, but everything is monitored and i can promise you there is a ridiculous amount of attention on every subject raised.

 

Of that ridiculous amount of attention there are a fraction who are relayed to the community. And thank god for that. because the amount of messages and discuissions back and forth is a part of why i left. I just didnt have the patience and the spare time to get involved before any action were taken. So Ty staff for sitting trough the amount of text and making a decision of things. And to the community who feels the information flow is to low, its for ur sanity.

 

3. The elephant in the room. Ryko is a simple guy, who i feel is often misunderstood. When he types short answers without todays mandatory emotes he does not hate you or lack the interest. There aint any lines to read between.  It is what it is. So if u feel he told you to fuck off, my guess is thats what u made it to look like. He sure as hell aint the perfect community leader due to being adult and maybe somewhat to busy of interaction like most of the pc gamers are used to, since these communities often are run by collage students with a ridiculous amount of spare time.

 

4. I heard aw lost alot of players now to BSO (atleast for the time being).This has happened before so its nothing new. When i got the time to play arma, i want to play where i can have the most fun. If thats BSO or AW, remains to be seen. Ive always been a sucker for aw, and with stiletto, and kennys MSO, i root for aw. I also know Kenny and somewhat Ryko altough he can be a tough nut to crack, so i feel my roots are with AW.

 

TL;DR= See things from others perspective and you might be surprised.

 

Vlk

 

 

 

[Johnson]

I've now read a lot of this post (at uni still but it's okay it's only my future) and I honestly don't understand what the problems are?

 

1. So we've established that there are arguments against Stanhope. They have been addressed twice now; Ryko's "A and B" groups and in this post itself.
2. The staff don't communicate enough, is that one of the main arguments? I don't think I've actually seen a single post that Ryko hasn't got involved in, surly that is enough evidence that the staff communicate with the playerbase, this post is case in point, and I heard you had a TS discussion (the one day I wasn't there, thanks). Plus all the other staff who communicate daily with the community. I mean there's loads in this post.

When coming back to AW I was certainly met with backlash, but letting bygones be bygones and Ryko's "A/B" pretty much cleared the air for me. It doesn't seem like these problems are actually community problems as much as they are personal problems.

 

I mean, I really don't like liberals, but it's hard to take a side here when it seems that there is no argument to actually be made.

 

Can someone who is arguing against AhoyWorld actually reply to this with bullet points making the main points of argument. Seriously, I just want it summed up and maybe peppered with some solutions? If not, it can be worked on. Thanks (sorry for incompetence).

 

I'm just hoping to kinda wrap things up here, in my eyes, it doesn't seem like any actual progress is being made due to the fact that there isn't any argument being made, just a bunch of shit thrown at a fan.

 

But again, please, feel free to correct me.

[Johnson]

20 hours ago, Eagle-Eye said:

online flight sim network

Fair enough, but maybe the two group theory doesn't work here because it's a flight sim community that is built of simulating real life through rulesets and stuff?

 

I mean, I can say the same for all the milsim units I've been in for Arma (the groups don't mix) but that is because that type of community is only built for one type of group (Group A).

 

AhoyWorld has always been accommodating to both groups (yes, even during Pat. Ops. / even before) because it's not one of these stated types of community; it's more mixed.

[GhostDragon]

From this post, I am getting 2^* points that are relevant.  (brackets are to show my comments on the issues)

 

1. Staff need to communicate more with the players. (The staff team are moving to make community meetings regularly to improve this and make the experience better for all members) 

2) Corestaff needs to communicate more with the staff team (This does not echo the thoughts of the majority of the staff team as a lot has changed in recent months.)

 

If I am missing anything feel free to communicate them to me so that i can continue to make my list and recommend changes to this remains an enjoyable community for people to play at. 

 

I have only taken from OP and request individual issues are presented with clear titles for clarity. 

[Eagle-Eye]

7 hours ago, J0hnson said:

AhoyWorld has always been accommodating to both groups (yes, even during Pat. Ops. / even before) because it's not one of these stated types of community; it's more mixed.

That is has always been like this doesn't matter. The purpose of making a link with that flight sim network is to show that even if you change the rules, general aim etc., you cannot accommodate such opposite groups without both agreeing to meet in the middle, which is (almost) never going to happen. At some point in time, you will have one or more members from one group requesting X because it would make the experience so much more in line with how they want to enjoy the sim, but (some members of) the second group will not agree to that (as-is) because it is not in line with how they enjoy it.

 

If the request is denied, you will undoubtedly lose some members from the 1st group. If the request is granted, you will lose some from the 2nd group. If the request is adjusted to meet in the middle, both sides will likely feel like they had to give in to the other group. Probably not enough to break with the network immediately, but that's where you will get that underbelly festering, especially if it happens often.

[Johnson]

2 hours ago, Eagle-Eye said:

If the request is denied, you will undoubtedly lose some members from the 1st group. If the request is granted, you will lose some from the 2nd group. If the request is adjusted to meet in the middle, both sides will likely feel like they had to give in to the other group. Probably not enough to break with the network immediately, but that's where you will get that underbelly festering, especially if it happens often.

Well, Ryko's group point relates predominantly to the sepration between people who stick tightly to the rules, and people who don't. That's all it is to do with.

 

The majority of other things (feature implementation etc.) are often agreed on or discussed separately, un-relating to the stated groups. For example, my cTab limitations post split people up depending on how much "realism" they prefer to have fun. But it was discussed fairly and a decision will likely be made.

[Noah_Hero]

On 13.11.2017 at 5:12 PM, Eagle-Eye said:

In my experience, you just can't combine the two.

I still think these groups can perfectly play together and all the grudges are only between individuals. Like for example I can perfectly play together with @J0hnson or @Minipily even though I am rule-crusader (A) and they are more the loose-rule-guys (B).

[Johnson]

Additionally, I don't think the A and B group theory has any corrilation to the players intention for realism.

 

Myself and Minipily are extreme fans of realism to ridiculous extents, but we are Group B.

[MessedUpSmiley]

I feel kinda weird replying here, but seeing I cannot send PMs - not sure if deliberate - and I occasionally still browse the forums to see what's going on; hope you guys don't mind.

 

 

@Stanhope after having read all the posts in this topic and deducting that a big portion of the entire argument is directed towards you and your 'wrongdoings'.
I just want to note down a few things for everyone and and give you a piece of advice, which has already been pointed out more globally by a couple of people in this thread, but never directly at the scenario I'll describe down below.
Keep in mind that we've never really met and I am doing my best to make this appropriate as possible but..

 

What I'm seeing is that there's people arguing that there's not enough communication, be it between CS and Admins or any other levels of the chain.

With Core Staff communication has been an issue as long as I can remember, but in-fact you should be happy; as things seem to have improved now that there was a change in leadership after the whole BACONMOP fiasco some time ago now. Keep in mind that the person - 

I'll not mention his name as this is nothing personal and I've done plenty of wrong during that period myself, i.e. throwing the towel in the bucket instead of pointing out the issues more explicit.

that was in charge at that time was almost never around during workweeks as he would be removed from his home due to his job and due to how things were going back then; a lot of approval was needed from his side. 

 

Now from what I've seen over the past couple of months is that @Ryko has been very dedicated to keeping the community alive; even when the donation counter did not even reach half of the required amount I did not see him complain. The other core staff members were not very active or just busy with their real life in general, which is nothing to be ashamed of as as Ryko has said, real life should have the right of way.

 

Although I'm not sure on what the activity levels of the CS at the moment is, I know from experience that both Mark T and S0zi0 were always very active, be it on Teamspeak and/or the servers, I do see the point in promoting 'Mark T', now even though at the time I was opposed. Instead of bringing a newbie admin into the fold back then, a person who would have the chance to develop and be a lot more active was brought in, perhaps is was not ment this way; but it turned out very well.

 

 

@ EU#3 (giggle)

The Group A // Group B stuff is just unpreventable, especially with so many different people controlling the playing environment there is a lot of wiggle room between the rules and what specific people actually punish or report you for. Some people utilize this this room, others remain in accordance to the standard. 

 

If you don't like playing with specific people, you don't fucking have to,* if they are in a squad, you don't have to join that same squad and be in their environment; join a different one and create some distance between the two of you. Same thing goes for radio channels, don't force yourself to communicate with them during game play, it will only make the irritation worse. If there - due to the rules - is no other option, you could always try and discuss how and what with the person, but don't postpone or deny the need to have this discussion in that case. < This should count for more situations than just in EU#3

 

*Take this as an example:

In the past I did - depending on my mood - did not like playing with specific people; I'll take Johnson & co. as an example. (Nothing personal, good people)

On occasions I liked playing with them because it was mostly fun, other occasions I wanted to play a tad more serious so I did not like playing with them. Luckily for me, it was very easy to pick slots distancing myself as they mainly played HAT or HAMMER. At spawn it was not really a problem, there's room for fun, if you can't accept that I don't think you should be playing EU#3 at all.

 

 

@Stanhope, filing multiple reports leading to severe punishment is also pointless, try to have a conversation with them and guide them in the right direction, nurture works a lot better than teaching by punishment and should not affect their opinion of you in a negative way. Keep in mind that they all put in some effort to set up the mods etc. and they are not some plug and play idiots that don't care about the rules as there are plenty of other servers out there.

>>-<<

Also on the matter of Teddy, he said that you did not take conversation up with him and you quoted his post, yet in your 'counterargument' you fail to give a reason of not having a conversation with him. In my opinion you shouldn't see your liaison role as a pre'91 East-German agency one, but rather being a medium to express the concerns your subordinates have to those higher up the hierarchy.
Now he should not have called you petty, but taking that to a personal level and explicitly monitoring his performance** is not something a trustworthy superior should do, give him a slap on the wrist for it and monitor everyone or no-one. 

As you said often you were the only person connected to the server RCON, that means that more people should have fallen to this method of Gestapo-like research.

 

* lmao -- Quote = started monitoring you just a tad better

 

Now this does not mean that it's unjust to remove him, I agree with you, if this had been the entire story.

To be honest, from what I'm seeing the failure to communicate is mostly to blame on you: you are the liaison, it's your responsibility to know what's going, a responsibility, which you signed up for when they asked you to do it, even before the two other candidates.

 

• As you said yourself, you heard from another source that he was getting burned out; why did you not know yourself - you are the liaison - you should have known. Especially if you're able to do the monitoring of his hours.
• Why did you not talk with him before asking core staff to remove him? Lay out the facts you had collected through monitoring the time he was on the PC in comparison to the time had actually had EPM open.

• Quote

  But this also means that you are partially to blame for the lack of communication.

  How is he to blame? You went through Core-Staff to get him removed, it's only fair he goes back that way to get the removal undone?

 

 

 

Piece of advise for everyone, from the one and only Zissou; expect everyone to be dumber than you.

[GhostDragon]

5 minutes ago, MessedUpSmiley said:

I cannot send PMs

this seems to be affecting a small number of people, we have yet to find the issue/reason why.

[Stanhope]

Before i reply to @MessedUpSmiley I should probably say a few other things.

First off, why i usually structure my posts the way i do, quoting piece by piece, sometimes that's a sentence sometimes that's a paragraph.  I do this because i find it the easiest way to respond and, to me, my arguments look clearer.  I don't like writing long text at all, so where i can i will split them up as much as i can.  

If anyone thinks i'm doing this because i'm having some kind of agenda by doing this, think again.  I write what i write, if you read something between the lines or find an underlying message, i didn't write that.  That's your imagination going wild.

Second, i've recently heard in TS that apparently a lot of people think i'm a big fat liar.  How they've come to this fact i don't know because up until yesterday nobody has ever confronted me with anything related to that.  Yesterday 1 person did, i explained the situation he described from my perspective.  He didn't believe me and he has every right.  But the reason why he didn't believe me is something i can't not mention.  He said that he didn't believe me because other people told him that i lied on other occasions too.  
What makes their word worth more than mine?  I mean, yes it's up to you to decide who you believe.  Come to me and I will not hesitate to elaborate on any situation in which you think that i lied.

 

2 hours ago, MessedUpSmiley said:

@Stanhope, filing multiple reports leading to severe punishment is also pointless, try to have a conversation with them and guide them in the right direction, nurture works a lot better than teaching by punishment and should not affect their opinion of you in a negative way.

In principle i totally agree.  However i didn't feel like that was the best solution.  Let me explain why:

Before the staff restructure i was an admin, meaning i also moderated AWE.  During the staff restructure i voluntarily left that position, for many reason.  Me basically saying anything that could remotely be associated with the rules pissed people off.  I tried to avoid this by taking a different approach.  Would it have been better if i just talked to them?  Maybe yes, i really don't know.
 

2 hours ago, MessedUpSmiley said:

Keep in mind that they all put in some effort to set up the mods etc. and they are not some plug and play idiots that don't care about the rules as there are plenty of other servers out there.

I'm fully aware of that yes. 

 

2 hours ago, MessedUpSmiley said:

Also on the matter of Teddy, he said that you did not take conversation up with him and you quoted his post, yet in your 'counterargument' you fail to give a reason of not having a conversation with him.

I can't give something that doesn't exist.  I realised that this wasn't the right way to handle after it happend.  I tried to correct this mistake by 3 days after this explain to teddy what i expected from him.  But as mentioned before (i think) he left the staff team minutes before i send that message to him.  
It takes time to fix things, 3 days may have been too long to wait but i didn't want to do it right after.  That, in my opinion, could have escalated things.  If i knew he was planning on quitting I might have reached out earlier and with a different message.  But as he asked to get his position back on the team I presumed that he wanted to stay.  So i waited a bit to let things cool down a bit.

 

3 hours ago, MessedUpSmiley said:

In my opinion you shouldn't see your liaison role as a pre'91 East-German agency one, but rather being a medium to express the concerns your subordinates have to those higher up the hierarchy.

From what i understand i don't hold a messenger position, I was told that i can make a lot of decisions on my own if i want to.  However i do ask for approval more often than i need to.  Why?  For 2 reasons: making decisions on your own shouldn't happen for most of the things i ask to be reviewed by staff, even if i'm allowed to make them on my own.  My spelling and grammar are horrible, i write most of those things over a period of several days.  I do reread them to check stuff but it's always better to have it read by another person who has better spelling and grammar than i do.
 

3 hours ago, MessedUpSmiley said:

Now he should not have called you petty, but taking that to a personal level and explicitly monitoring his performance** is not something a trustworthy superior should do, give him a slap on the wrist for it and monitor everyone or no-one. 

As you said often you were the only person connected to the server RCON, that means that more people should have fallen to this method of Gestapo-like research.

If you define that when i'm looking into the server logs and while i'm at it look for teddys information as well gestapo-like.  And when i'm behind my PC and don't have anything particular to do checking which admins are connected gestapo-like.  Sure then i'm guilty.  Yes i monitored teddy a bit closer but that doesn't mean i stopped monitoring everyone.  And i didn't have the luxury to cut a lot of people from the public mod team.  So i started with one person.  Did him calling me petty affect my decision on who?  In all likelihood yes.  Now i know that there are still people inactive as public moderators.  But since this incident i've started doing things differently, slower.  I've reached out to most of the public mods that i know or suspect to be inactive.  

Was the way i handled it with teddy a mistake?  Definitely.  But he was also let back on the team.  He then proceeded to leave without talking to me.   I know he didn't have to, but i was planning on doing it.  
 

3 hours ago, MessedUpSmiley said:

To be honest, from what I'm seeing the failure to communicate is mostly to blame on you: you are the liaison, it's your responsibility to know what's going, a responsibility, which you signed up for when they asked you to do it, even before the two other candidates.

Of course, but i didn't sign up.  And i didn't ask to be the first one to be given a shot.  Did I mind?  No, I did not.  

 

3 hours ago, MessedUpSmiley said:

As you said yourself, you heard from another source that he was getting burned out; why did you not know yourself - you are the liaison - you should have known. Especially if you're able to do the monitoring of his hours.

As i said i don't believe i'm a liaison.  And i've hear him say that he was getting burned out of the spartan lead position (I should probably have been clearer on this, sorry for that).  Which is not covered by me being the public mod lead.And monitoring hours is as easily as opening up server logs and pressing ctrl+f. 

And I can see TS viewer wherever i have wifi on my phone.   It doesn't take me hours to monitor someone.  Just a minute every so often while i'm doing something else.  

 

By the way for those frowning over me having the spartan lead position right now.  I'm holding the seat warm for someone else.  I never had the intention on keeping this positions.  Even though I certainly don't mind having it, doing spartan lead, public mod lead and I&A dev at the same time is too time consuming.  

 

3 hours ago, MessedUpSmiley said:

Why did you not talk with him before asking core staff to remove him? Lay out the facts you had collected through monitoring the time he was on the PC in comparison to the time had actually had EPM open.

I made a mistake, it happens, i've changed the way i'm doing things now.

 

3 hours ago, MessedUpSmiley said:

Quote

But this also means that you are partially to blame for the lack of communication.

How is he to blame? You went through Core-Staff to get him removed, it's only fair he goes back that way to get the removal undone?

Sure but then why leave?  If he left because of me asking him to remove without asking me why i did what i did then wouldn't it be better to come talk to me.  I was planning on doing that as i mentioned earlier.
Communication is a 2 way street.  In my opinion if you haven't yourself tried to open up a dialog you can't blame the other person for 100% of the breakdown in communication.  If i'm wrong in that, then no he's not to blame, then it's all me.

 

3 hours ago, MessedUpSmiley said:

What I'm seeing is that there's people arguing that there's not enough communication, be it between CS and Admins or any other levels of the chain.

With Core Staff communication has been an issue as long as I can remember

I have up until this day not had an issue.  
Have i not gotten answer back after i asked something?  Plenty of times.  Does that mean there is an issue?  Absolutely not.  When you don't get an answer back you either make a friendly inquiry or remind the person you messaged that you've not gotten an answer back yet.  Of course also in a friendly way.  And you obviously also wait an appropriate amount of time to send this inquiry or reminder.  What an appropriate amount of time is depends on how urgent something is.  
Take for example spartans being given full zeus access instead of only when a public mod is on the server.  A few days before this is supposed to happen i ask and tell that it isn't urgent.  It in all likelihood will not happen on the exact timed date.  But does that matter?

 

I'm also going to say that in 99.99% of cases i get an answer back from a member of CS if i message them personally within 12 hours.  Seeing how some people work during the day and possibly can't look at telegram i find this reasonable.  If i really had an emergency i wouldn't message any specific member of CS, i'd use the telegram channel we have specifically for that.

 

This will be the last reply i make on this topic and i will also not reply to the one in the enhanced subsection related to this.  This because i don't feel that people are believing what i write and are keen on reading between the lines.  And as i said, i'm not writing what you're reading there.  
If you want to know anything about anything, feel free to come talk to me in TS.  I'm on TS almost every day and in all likelihood all day tomorrow.

[PERO]

 

In the past, I`ve decided not to participate in any discussion about AW, but after seeing a few interesting topics pop up in last 2 weeks, especially this one, I`ve seen a chance to type down a few words.. Reading a few replies from the last week, especially the one from Zissou (that Smiley posted in his name) gave me a sign it`s time to do it in a civil way.

On 15. 11. 2017 at 4:48 PM, GhostDragon said:

this seems to be affecting a small number of people, we have yet to find the issue/reason why.

I strongly doubt this is true. If it is, it shows the core issue you`re having now and where it originates from. It was an issue in the past, it seems the 1st leadership-change era has not changed it.

Honestly, not really a unforeseen result, after seeing a few persons still part of CS.

 

Only civil and argumentative dialog will solve this, my "wisdom" from experience.

 

I hope Piranha will be able to sort these things out, if not, just to ease his reign.

[PiranhA]

46 minutes ago, PERO said:

I hope Piranha will be able to sort these things out, if not, just to ease his reign.

Thanks for the feedback Pero, ill do my best. I dont mind stuff like this, its common in my daily life, theres only one thing vital:

 

48 minutes ago, PERO said:

Only civil and argumentative dialog will solve this

And to be honest, i think its already solved. Some people gone, taking a break or went somewhere else, i hope everybody is doing the right thing to get a good time. You can do it here, im happily to provide, you can go somewhere else if you want to and find something better, i said the same to my ex-wife..., rest is history and we both happy now.