The Staff - Change In Ranks

Well someone decided, "O hai, ima deleted this topic for no reason." Well I say bollocks to you sir, I shall just post it all again.

Dramaslims wrote:Also I would like to address the issue of our low numbers in staff. We have decent amount of staff but what I do not see is enough high ranking staff. We could use a couple of trustworthy staff members (Not that we don't have trustworthy staff.) The whole ranking system is really jacked and it needs to be addressed and handled by all the staff. I also think we need input from our members. That should be an imediate issue that needs to be fixed when and if the server will come back up.

We need some reform in the server, such as a fresh new ranking system, and I think that it would help to just freshen up the server a little. But that is just my opinions on things.

It's no lie that there are issues that need to be addressed and we need to probably make a thread so all the staff can give their input on it and hopefully come to a server wide decission. What do you guys think?

WEareMARSHALL wrote:Ok, well first off, when I can I'm gonna try and get $15 in, I just have to use my dad's credit card. But on the ranking/staff problem, I have a couple ideas, some I've seen and one of my own creation.
1. Time based Ranks - not my personal favorite, but adds a new aspect instead of just building
2. Specialized Ranks - For example, someone really good at creating intricate buildings could become an "Engineer". Someone with mad pixel art skills could become an artist. And so on.
3. Group Leaders (my idea :S)- these would be from op up, but it would require one particular person taking charge of that group and watching over them. Kinda like the mod of the mods.
4. This one I saw works really well too- cut down the mod poistions to only two: mod and op. But mods and ops, once experianed enough, can be promoted to Vet Op or Vet Mod ( they can't apply for that though)
there's a few, I'll add more if I think of them

Dramaslims wrote:The staff ranks arent the problem. And it's not so much the ranking sytem itself as it is the promoting. It is horrible. We need guidlines and ranks that are easily in sync with those guidelines. But I do like the idea of the specialized ranks. It's kind of interesting. I don't know what the owners wan't to do. I wan't to get their input on making changes to it before we discuss changes. We pretty much can't do anything without the big guys consent.

Ok well, I'll post my idea on how to best reform the promotion problem again:

1.Buildings Ranks - Make the building ranks require a time spent minimum. This means that the players will have to spend time and become dedicated before they can even apply for staff. Even though I really don't like this, the system is very good at weaseling out the players who are not dedicated. And as another +, it provides a really good incentive for donating and becoming a VIP.

2. Staff- Ok, first off, cut down the staff ranks to Trial-Op (this one could be removed), Mod, Op, and Manager. But the Application process for these need to change. To apply, you have to fill out a form on the forum. Staff Members then give the applicant a +1, 0, or -1. Once a certain amount of staff have voted, the score is tallied up and if it is say, +10/15 staff members, they are accepted.

3. Admin- Cut down the Head Manager, Co-Owner, and Owner into one rank, Admin. These upper ranks are really about ego more than anything. Chef would be the only one who can promote/demote people to and from this rank.

Well there you have. The Staff take two. Feel free to add your own comments, what you like and don't like. I've got a lot ideas, so pick and choose what you think will make the best server, even add your own ideas!

Ranks are not as easily changed as one might think. For me to add or remove a rank(s) would entail taking the commands attached to that rank and setting them to another one. Setting the ranks we have now took me almost 4 hours. There are almost 200 commands that I have to sift through one by one, not to mention the blocks like /nerve_gas.

Chef wrote:Ranks are not as easily changed as one might think. For me to add or remove a rank(s) would entail taking the commands attached to that rank and setting them to another one. Setting the ranks we have now took me almost 4 hours. There are almost 200 commands that I have to sift through one by one, not to mention the blocks like /nerve_gas.

Ok, yes. Admittedly, this is going to require some work from Chef. But look on the plus side. By changing the ranking system, it is going to require four hours or so of work. But by doing this, it eliminates ranking problems, staff issues, bad staff *cough* freecan *cough*, and eliminates countless headaches, defiantly worth four hours. Besides, most of my ideas include reducing the amount of ranks, so that should take down the time. I think what this really means is if a change is to be made it needs to be big enough and beneficial enough to be worth Chef's time.

One of the problems is addressing those who do not want to be staff, or can't become staff. They don't really have much use after hitting designer. Any who we need to seperate the good builders from the bad and award those who are good. Solve these and it may "be worth chefs time". Keep in mind permissions scale between two numbers. 0-100 most of the time and so each block/command needs to be applied to each part of that scale.

Doddy wrote:One of the problems is addressing those who do not want to be staff, or can't become staff. They don't really have much use after hitting designer. Any who we need to seperate the good builders from the bad and award those who are good. Solve these and it may "be worth chefs time". Keep in mind permissions scale between two numbers. 0-100 most of the time and so each block/command needs to be applied to each part of that scale.

Ok, I am a little confused why this would be a big issue. I really cannot think of a case in which either a player does not want to become staff or can't. But if that is an issue to you, I think two of my ideas could solve it.
1. Specialized ranks would mean that builders could move up into their own categories, which would be an alternative to staff.
2. Having a Group Leader for Designer- The person leading this group would be the best non-staff builder, and it could become a type of competition for who gets to own that title. And better yet, this would not require adding a rank, maybe only a specially designated title!

Spoiler:

Of course it's a big issue, not everyone wants to be staff - if I was to join TIM fresh I'd rather just build, and just a like many of the people who don't care about "power". It's also a good thing for me to point out that we don't accept every mod application out there, so having a parallel option (specialized ranks?) is necessary.

Having "groups" just isn't possible, unless you take it to the software devs at McForge and ask them to strip out the linear design they have at the moment. Specialized ranks are however a possibility, it sounds like a good idea to seperate builders perhaps by type or skill.

This is a little demonstration of how a rank will look like in the .txt

Spoiler:

Lets say there is someone on the server who is a pretty fantastic builder but is roughly around the architect rank;

Spoiler:

^player can now cuboid and build more complex shapes more easily.

_
Lets say there is someone on the server who is a pretty good observer and a potential promoter/moderator.

Spoiler:

The player has the same building power as an Architect, but can kick/warn/mute mis-behaving players.

In this concept a single '+' means they are an avid builder, and two '++' means they're good moderators.


Command properties file text;

Spoiler:

As it states, it works entirely on permissions values and not names. For specialized ranks to work 'disallow' and 'allow' would have to be used to prevent high level builders from getting mod commands.

I really like the idea, that was pretty much what I was thinking. I like the idea of additional commands specific to the rank, I didn't think of that. The only thing I think would make it better would be better names instead of just Architect+ and Architect++. Something like,

Spoiler:

And btw, what I meant about "groups" was that we use the title to designate who is the leader of that particular rank. While they would not be above to rule over those in their group, they would be responsible for them and try to help and take care of them. Basically an early version of staffing

now...i think the ranks are good but, the cuboid limit sucks along with some commands placed at certain ranks like active_water should be put at operator. and /say should be put at manager. that is the only problem i see with the staff's ranks

The reason why active_water is CEO is because idiots like to flood their maps and potentially crash the server. I higly doubt that will be changed.

Say is easy to troll with. That's probably why it's Assistant-owner.

X wrote:The reason why active_water is CEO is because idiots like to flood their maps and potentially crash the server. I higly doubt that will be changed.

Say is easy to troll with. That's probably why it's Assistant-owner.

What she said.

X wrote:
The reason why active_water is CEO is because idiots like to flood their maps and potentially crash the server. I higly doubt that will be changed.

Say is easy to troll with. That's probably why it's Assistant-owner.




What she said.

yea but the cuboid limits aren't too good ya know

cuboid limits are also to prevent crashing the server people accidentally or intentionally cuboid massive amounts and it lags the server greatly or crashes it

cuboid limits are also to prevent crashing the server people accidentally or intentionally cuboid massive amounts and it lags the server greatly or crashes it

ok if those are th reasons why the commands and cuboid limits are like that, then i see no futher problems with the ranking system

I'm concerned about the group idea, as to whether it would be mandatory. I would not desire involvement in such a thing, and may not be alone in this. I don't think such reservations should detriment those who want or need to be part of a group, but I think it would equally apply that their preference not be forced upon those opposed to it. Sorry to be cantankerous. I recognize that a more directed and supportive building environment would be very helpful to some, but it might be seen as unduly restrictive and uncomfortable to others. I don't see either as particularly superior. Some may only have an casual interest in the group, not falling into either category. I only hope the sociological factors are fairly considered, this is probably stuff you all know already, and my concern is probably baseless.

I agree with Marshal. We do need a 'easier' ranking system in some ways and we do need to reform the system but... Easier ranking could mean chaos which everyone should know. A easier system could allow unworthy players who will abuse there power to be a admin. What I think is that both of these arguments have a problem and that we need a solution!!! Anyways I coul go with the problems for both sides but again a reformation of the system is required. Oh yes also new ranking system is also ,in my opinion,is not very nessecary. But we might need to make new ranks during this reform and solution.... For the betterment our servers - Creatoss

P.S. I will not vote for the poll cause we don't need to change everything. We NEED a reform. Also because no one side is right.

thank you again for your opinion but i am curious when you say " For the betterment our servers - Creatoss"
do you mean out full version MC and our zombie survival?

@Copper
Well yes, the group participation would be mandatory. But this isn't a group as in a clan, but more as a moderating tool. While hopefully it will unite people of the same rank, that's not its main goal. Each rank has it's own group head, watching over the rest of those with the same rank, and reporting on those they think are either really doing their job, or just barely pulling through. So while you would be part of the group, as long as your doing everything you should be, it really won't affect you.

@Creatoss
Huh? I never said easier. If anything, I meant simpler, but never easier.

I can't disagree with better organization, and I'm glad there will be no clan arrangement. I am curious if this group head would have a different role than the people in the next rank above his rank, or if he would take the role they held in assisting those beneath them.

I think its possible that this could divide the overall community into more sharply defined classes, though not very much so, that's only a very passing concern. That may not even be bad if it did happen, but I wonder if you think its possible for that to be a result.

I think your idea would certainly help make things less lonely, encouraging advancement rather than going back to associate with larger ranks. I definitely like that aspect of it. My opinion doesn't effect what happens, but I do like it.

I believe Creatoss tends toward rhetorical flourish at the occasional expense of communicating, like a political pamphlet of some sort. I bet he would do well in that field.