Guess it's time for me to speak up on this matter. I'll start from the top.
Watermelons first post
From my own point of view, Water is stressing his concern for the amount of staff that are online and active versus the staff that are inactive and usually unavailable. This is understandable, I do believe all staff should be relatively active and have SOME part and hand in the on-goings of Zandronum.
Ænima wrote:
I personally don't think the inactivity of those few people is a problem.
Actually, it is. Everyone in staff has a set job to do and when one person isn't participating, it all lies on the shoulders of someone else or doesn't get finished at all or is set on the back burner.
Decay wrote:
Qent is a terrible example because he is a puppet without a spine. He has some logic but is more machine than anything else.
I see something completely different from him in our staff channel. He shows his own personality, his own mind and doesn't jump on any bandwagons.
Decay wrote:
How are you defining active? By playing? Half the time these "active" people play under alias. Playing doesn't make you a great mod/admin, it actually makes you a worse one since from what I've noticed is that you are more inclined to abuse your power.
Do you have any grounds to base that statement on? I mean, where does one get an opinion like that from staff playing the game they administrate/moderate?
Circunei Z wrote:
You give us a list of people you want to be removed from staff and say it's to help others, but! How does an inactive admin prevent anyone from doing their job?
As I stated earlier, if there's less activity from the staff hired and the staff currently on, it continues to lie on the shoulders of someone else in that position. It doesn't prevent anyone from doing their job, it makes it more difficult and time consuming.
Decay wrote:
"Keep in mind you aren't allowed to publicly express opinions on staff."
It was late and I worded this poorly. It should be understood as "while on staff," not just expressing opinions (which staff are open to and we are allowed, even encouraged, to do).
This is quite true. I've had to hold back and the rest of the staff have had to hold back their true opinions and thoughts on things just to save flamewars/drama bait. While on staff, it is encouraged to keep a neutral opinion/mind on every situation to discard any biased opinions on things.
Watermelon wrote:
Circunei Z wrote:
You give us a list of people you want to be removed from staff and say it's to help others, but! How does an inactive admin prevent anyone from doing their job?
Think about what you said for a second. In inactive admin is someone who is pretty much MIA, and you can't do a job in that state (obviously). Not only that but being away so much leaves you with a complete disconnect from the community.
This is an issue in some cases. Having something that's considered dramatic or traumatic happen in the community then having to go back and explain the situation in detail to which ever staff member was inactive during the whole thing is time consuming depending on the situation.
Watermelon wrote:If they are filling some kind of position in the background then the staff should let us know exactly what they're doing because last time I checked the administration wanted to be transparent, and so far it doesn't feel that way.
Staff is as transparent as it's going to get at this current time. We currently have #zastaff, this public staff forum, the public master server list, public IRC and Forum ban lists, I even try to let people know what's going on in this subforum as much as possible and ask for input on things. There are issues that need to be dealt with privately to save a lot of hassle.
TerminusEst13 wrote:
I hate to be "that guy" but you say this as if it's official that he HAS to post here.
I hate to be "that guy" but why does a simple user feel he has the ground to seriously discuss major staff reforms and who needs kicked off?
Isn't that sort of stuff reserved for administration and staff to decide...?
Every user here has the right to say/express how they feel, even with staff. I have no problems at all. But honestly, it is how you approach it. I believe Watermelon tried to approach this the right way, and sure he is pretty misguided on a few things but he's not slandering us or trying to be disrespectful and I applaud that. It's perfectly fine if you say things like "This person seems inactive and hasn't contributed to anything that I've seen in a while, why are they still on staff?" It's an honest question, but only someone who knows about the situation can answer.
Everybody talking about TMC
He is quite snarky, and it's pretty hilarious, imo. However, he is on at times when most staff are not. He looks over IRC during, what is, my ZzZ time and apparently he's helpful in zamapping, I'll take everyones word on that as I can see him doing that. So I have no further comments about TMC.
='Decay']Most of you guys know my take on bandronum's staff. I'm not fond of them, and they aren't fond of me. But in this case I fully support them. This is extremely demanding and literally serves zero purpose. Nobody should ever have to outline everything they do, mod/admin/user/whatever. That is nuts. The forums are running smoothly right now. People have a name to go to for whatever reason and it gets done. Any real rabble rousing is dealt with pretty swiftly. There is legit no reason at all to replace "inactive" staff especially given the reasons for their absence. "Oman here comes school, shit guy I'm going to lose mod status because of it!"
To be extremely blunt all I see here is a power grab attempt. "Remove inactive for actives (like me!) to fill their role."
We may be more fond of you if you let go of the constant attitude that you compose in your posts. Though, I do agree it is very demanding. Especially the way Watermelon has proposed it, but I do think he is trying to make suggestions rather than demand it.
Dynamo wrote:
Not only I don't get why this is important, but I also don't get why you care. What matters is how things are taken care of, not how many people are working on it.
Actually, this is an issue, for me anyway. As I stated before, the less staff, the more that lies on someone else's shoulders. It's best when staff works as a team and everyone pitches in as much as someone who is active. It really helps.
Zap610 wrote:
You are making it seem like all of us work for you
To be quite fair, this is how some of the staff is treated everyday. People demand things constantly with no real intentions of being polite or showing good mannerisms. "Do this" "Unban me" It is pretty frequent, but we learn to look past it. Sorry for the offtopic. But again, I think it's mere suggestions but you are correct with the phrasing, I think it needs to be re-worded.
Decay wrote:Thanks for being passive aggressive, fuck you too.
This is what I was talking about. For the last time, please don't do this.
XCOPY wrote:
Point the bad sides of having "so many" admins here.
Remember, being admin is not a prize, it's a responsability.[/align]
Having too many admins can just be a cluster fuck and result in conflicting opinions constantly which halts at anything being done. The amount of admins we have currently is just fine, it's just the current activity. I don't believe in cutting people, but maybe a group would suffice for inactivity as we had before. You can place yourself in there and bring yourself out when you're done with RL and wish to come back and help out.
Being an admin is indeed a huge responsibility, even for a small community it has it's difficult moments. But if you love the game, like what you're doing and like helping people as much as you can, it's one of the best things you can do.
I tried to reply to everyone as much and as open minded as possible. My grammar right now is probably terrible on 4 hours sleep, sorry in advance. However, I wish the some of the staff who aren't in completely different time zones were a little more active, but RL > This.
Edit: Just seen waters post before my book. Please don't agitate the situation.