PDA

View Full Version : Some ideas #igpug



JackOfHearts
04-21-2004, 04:12 AM
We've talked about a few ideas for how to structure #igpug... the goals seem to be clear:

1. Fair admins that aren't causing controversy
2. Enough admins to be able to set servers and moderate
3. Not so many admins that the channel becomes chaotic
4. 1 pug channel so the community isn't so split

We've talked about a few ideas, and I'll post a few of them here for discussion.

* Every server that is used to play PUGs should have no more than two people as users for the channel. One of these people will be an op (or master), and the other will be given voice. Whoever pays for the server will be allowed to chose these for their server, and it can be themselves or someone else.

For example, Dog has his own server which he contributes, and so he decides to make himself the op, and give Ryguy admin to it, and have him +v for #igpug. Ry will be expected to set the server if Dog isn't around.

* Dog should be owner, Ava coowner (I don't think anyone has ever had any qualms with ava... at least that I have ever heard), and then everyone else should be equal level.

I realize this is controversial, and I know some people feel like they've put a lot more sweat and blood into the project than others, and some feel they will set servers far more often than others. I think those people should consider though, that the only two reasons to have a user level higher than the other ops is to
1. Ban other ops - which should never end up being a problem
2. For respect from the community

I can understand the second, but I think that it's outweighed by the need for everyone to percieve the channel to be totally fair and unbaised. The idea is to make the channel work as well as possible, not as some measure of status.

* There should be a limit to the number of admins

At some point, there should be enough servers that the channel doesn't need more for everything to run smoothly. And in fact adding more will likely just cause more chaos in the channel and cause new disputes. I don't know what the limit should be, but I think there should be one (maybe 12?)

* Maybe want to consider a limit to the number of people from any individual clan that are ops

Again just for percieved fairness, just a thought.

* Maybe have one or two admins that are simply moderators

Ideally, these people would be generally respected and neutral people that would also help increase the percieved fairness of the channel. Maybe from established clans that don't have a server to contribute but are often part of pugs, or maybe people who aren't as invovled with the game anymore but still want to be part of the community. Once again, I haven't thought this through completely, its just a suggestion.


That's it for now. Damn I wrote all this after coming back from drinking with some friends that just turned 21. I rule.

:D

BuddhaMan
04-21-2004, 07:27 AM
Well said!

Is this channel going to be for UT2K4? I ask 'cause this forum is a subforum of multiple UT2K3 forums. Pehaps get Doggy to build a new spot for it?

FreakGrl
04-22-2004, 11:58 AM
Very well said, Jack, and some really great points. However, I wanted to add my two cents, and explain why I feel about them the way I do.

I agree with most of what you've said. Our goal is to set a pug channel that is going to be fun and will have fair admins, however, in saying this, your idea of what a fair admin is may be very different from what someone else might think. I'll use myself as an example here. When I was master in #centpug, I was told that there were PM's to Kaos and eTeRNaL (when each were owners) regarding my bannings. I think, and had been told by some of the masters/ops/players, that I was one of the very few that actually banned people for breaking rules. Now, that's a good example of how there were people that didn't feel I was a fair op and those that thought I was one of the only ones that actually enforced and followed rules in the channel. This can also be tied in with what you mentioned regarding a server owner choosing someone to be voiced (as setter of that server). What the owner of that server might think is a good choice doesn't necessarily mean that majority of people would think the same thing.

As for enough admins to be able to set servers and moderate, that has always been a challenge. I know that I had noticed several times in #centpug where there were tons of ops in the channel, but no one would set servers, yet we saw them chatting in the channel. This is always a challenge, but I think that Dog has taken some great steps in ensuring those that are listed as ops etc are around on a constant basis.

I agree with your presentation of Dog and Ava, as I respect both of these individuals immensely. The only problem I have with the idea of leaving only two people in the top two positions are for a couple reasons. One, being that Dog and Ava aren't around 24/7 and when a dispute happens, then it's going to need discussion, which could take longer than needed when we have a few of us that are around constantly to help in that decision making area. Two, I think that I know if I was owner, I wouldn't want to shoulder very little detail that was going on in the channel and have to come online (or check email) and have to go through more than enough BS about how so-and-so was unfair for banning etc. It's much like a corporation, where Dog, from what I gather, chose people that are around enough, and people that he felt were responsible enough to deal with the day to day stuff that he can't be around for. Being a co-owner/master/op isn't about a popularity contest, because, let's face it, I think that anyone that gets banned isn't going to necessarily like the person who has banned them, no matter what their perception of that person was prior to the banning. It's much like a corporation with an Owner, Director, Manager, Supervisor, and staff. We have rules in place in the channel for a reason, but we also need people that are around enough to enforce them, and if we have two people at the top that may not be around when it happens, it just means less BS for them to come back to by giving a bit of 'authority' to people they trust. Respect is a really tough issue, because with the variety of personalities in this community, you're never going to make 100% of the people 100% happy all the time, you're always going to have conflict no matter how many people you have in different positions. Also, just for the record, I didn't ask for co-ownership, it was asked OF me to take it, because I am around all the time, and was one of the few ops in #centpug that actually enforced rules that were broken. If that was taken away, I'm fine with it. I had no ops in the beginning of #centpug and still set servers, so it's not a huge issue. I'm just trying to make a point.

I wholeheartedly agree with limiting the number of people from any individual clan in the co-owner/master/op positions. I know that when #igpug was orignally built, a lot of people found that it was top heavy in master/ops from one particular clan. I think that when you have two people that have admin to the same server in the op area, then the others (that set on a regular basis) should be voiced. Setting a server and getting ops/voice doesn't mean you set a server once in while, it means that you're constantly setting and around to set on a regular basis.

In regards to the two admins that shouldl be set as moderators (and being generally respected and neutral) again, I go back to what I said regarding your perception of a neutral and respected moderator and another person's perception. I think for me, as a player, I'd rather someone who is actually participating in the community (by pugging etc) than someone who isn't, because someone who actually plays them and participates in the game will have a better understanding of what can be frustrating playing a pug.

Again, I'm not here to say what I think you said is wrong, I just wanted to contribute another side of the coin to look at too. You've got some fantastic ideas! :)

PS for coming back from drinking and being that clear on your post, you are tha man! heh

Irresistable
04-22-2004, 02:50 PM
Originally posted by FreakGrl
... It's much like a corporation with an Owner, Director, Manager, Supervisor, and staff...



LOL, corporations don't have owners, they have a Board of Trustees and shareholders. Unless by "corporation" you meant BIG SHINY COMPANY , you twit. Next time use a comparison you actually know something about like maybe the smurf village or something. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Irresistable
04-22-2004, 03:06 PM
Here's my ten cents, my two cents is free...


1) Co-owners is a good idea, but what if they disagree? Let's face it, in reality one is owner and one is co-owner. This is why Dog and Ava should both be co-owners and an indifferent third party, namely me, should be owner. This way when Dog and Ava disagree they can come to me and I will gladly ban everyone from the channel till they can get along and they realize this is a game and nothing more.

"I'll turn this bus around, and ruin your precious little field trip!" :laugh:

2) BAN all known cheaters, this is key to keeping pugs fun.
3) BAN all known trouble makers, this is also key. If someone was a trouble maker and decides he has changed he will need to earn his way back in, by submitting an 5000 word essay on the inportance of civil conduct.
4) BAN JAH! This is non-conditional. If JAH decides he is not a chaser anymore, he must earn his way back in as well. First he must be observed for a period of at least 90hours to see if there are any chasing "flashbacks". Then he must submit a 500 word essay on why he was gay. :laugh:
5) Bring all suspected cheaters, troublemakers, and chasers to the attention of the high council and have them observed.
6) Random bans from time to time will also show the masses they need to live in fear. This is a good thing in the long run.
7) Limit the shittalking by removing the shittalkers, this really ruins the game for newer players.
8) Remind Lawliss this is a PUG, from time to time. :laugh:
9) Endorse good sportsmanship.
10) Brand and advertise your product.

These are the ten commandments I have set before you to live happily amongst each other.

I will take on the burden of being the sole indifferent, and objective owner, because I truly care about nothing and noone. And I do this equally for everyone.

Plus I have experience :D


That is all...

:laugh: :laugh:

JackOfHearts
04-22-2004, 04:03 PM
nice post irr :evil:

Irresistable
04-22-2004, 04:07 PM
LOL, just bored at work Jack :P Think people will make me supreme commander ??? haha.

FreakGrl
04-22-2004, 07:03 PM
Originally posted by Irresistable
LOL, corporations don't have owners, they have a Board of Trustees and shareholders. Unless by "corporation" you meant BIG SHINY COMPANY , you twit. Next time use a comparison you actually know something about like maybe the smurf village or something. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Ummm..yeah they do, all kinds of corporations they have owners (someone has to own them, correct??) helloooo??? I know a lot of companies that have OWNERS...so stfu. Thanks :D

FreakGrl
04-22-2004, 07:17 PM
bah, I lost it and I"m not going to retype it :P

Irresistable
04-22-2004, 08:49 PM
Originally posted by FreakGrl
Ummm..yeah they do, all kinds of corporations they have owners (someone has to own them, correct??) helloooo??? I know a lot of companies that have OWNERS...so stfu. Thanks :D


LOL, I'm not sure if this is even worth a response. Look up "shareholders". Oh and btw corporation != company, you seem to be using them interchangeably :D

QB
04-23-2004, 05:18 AM
lol

sorry freaky thats sorta funny though =P

BuddhaMan
04-23-2004, 07:33 AM
Originally posted by Irresistable
corporation != company

LOL...a programmer are we?

I don't think too many peeps around here will get that. :D

Irresistable
04-23-2004, 09:46 AM
Originally posted by BuddhaMan
LOL...a programmer are we?

I don't think too many peeps around here will get that. :D


Should I have used "<>" instead? I couldn't think of how else to say "not equal to", so I went with what I use generally :P

and yes we are a leet programmer, actually a Java Architect, but you knew that Buddha :)

JackOfHearts
04-23-2004, 02:22 PM
I think most of us will get !=

QB
04-23-2004, 07:50 PM
hell i even get it

BuddhaMan
04-23-2004, 08:35 PM
Fine...I steroetyped everyone on BTP as non-programmers and without clue and for that I'm sorry. :finger:

PS: All sterotyping aside...all members of NvTS are ghey (including the 2 that posted above me). :moon:

Porn: I didn't know you were a programmer...let alone a Java Junkie. :D

FreakGrl
04-23-2004, 09:33 PM
You can all kiss my lily white ass! :D

Here, I'll use one word for you Irres to make it simple for you....I'll stick with company...better?

SealClubber
04-24-2004, 02:42 AM
I should be an admin for this channel because im special and very important to this community. I dont see how you people dont see that? :confused:

FreakGrl
04-25-2004, 12:46 AM
We are all special SB ;-)

BuddhaMan
04-25-2004, 04:27 AM
SB?

Who Dat?

MadCobra
05-05-2004, 09:05 PM
make gt2 owner!!!

Smoke`
05-05-2004, 09:40 PM
lmao mc if we done that then ut would die

MadCobra
05-10-2004, 09:52 AM
i just read irres post about the 10 commandents

LMFAO

Thas some funny shit man. :laugh: :D

Shylock
01-20-2005, 11:57 PM
Should I have used "<>" instead? I couldn't think of how else to say "not equal to", so I went with what I use generally :P

and yes we are a leet programmer, actually a Java Architect, but you knew that Buddha :)


HAHAHHA
$Java_Architect = "My personal bot coder";
echo "Ires is $Java_Architect";

FUCKTARD, to many good people on this thread, seeing if they're still alive, these boards are fucking dead!

Vyper
01-21-2005, 12:38 AM
ROFL Shy. Irres aint around much. He's too busy looking for a job that'll pay in Cali. LOL

Shylock
01-21-2005, 09:21 AM
hmm.... last time i talked to him he had a job, but anyway, he's still on msn, i look at his name and ignore it.