But rewards are a reward for service. We can all pretend that they aren't but as with any sort of service, they are.

15-20 hours as a temporary thing? That's 2-3 hours a day. Seems pretty legit and pretty active to me.


Yes, as I said, it's definitely fine. But, it is hampering operation, which is what you asked. Is it hampering operation in a way that is somewhat small? Yeah, but it's still hampering.

I've provided them. Waiting. 2 level 4s? Let's even say that you have two extremely active people who are on 30-35 hours a week (4-5 hours every day)...even if they were never on at the same time, that would leave almost 2/3 of the week in which a level 4 RC wasn't present.

No, they aren't. Maybe some managers run their servers that way, but it's a bad way to run a server. I haven't gotten any new rights in 2 years, it only means I can't do extra work, not that I'm under appreciated.

Which is why I qualified my statement with "If" as in "may or may not be" and "causing a problem". Each element vary important in the decision.

I have a good example today.

A Nat "aquired" a level 4 rc by using someones else's account, and gave himself heaps of rights, then fired me. Yay go Endora.

Graal has existed and playerworlds have succeeded for many years without the imposition of such restrictions. As I stated previously, give the managers the benefit of the doubt. If a particular manager proves themself unable to effectively maintain security and checks/balances with respect to rights distribution, then it becomes your job to step in and do something about it. However, if a playerworld is running effectively and efficiently without these restrictions in place, then why step in and upset that unnecessarily? If it's not broken, why fix it?
Apparently that playerworld needs to tighten security so things like this don't happen, and, if a "higher-up" member of staff is enabling this, then appropriate action should be taken.

Thats kind of silly that some person could use another's acct to give themselves rights, all RCs should be locked to IP or Computer ID. I suggest Computer ID for L4s.

On Aeon there are 9 people with L4 RC including myself, all of which have been with the server far over a year.
2 Owners, 2 Managers, 3 Server Admins, 1 Lead Developer and myself the NPC Admin.

I believe these rules should include the phrase "Don't be stupid" in its overall summary. It would be a loose reference to the Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy (which I'm sure we all can agree was a great movie).


just me though <3


edit btw I know it was a book too thank you very much you don't have to remind me mr smarty pants

Bumpinator
 

Weird, but it seems like this Long Buried Comment is quite applicable in view of Zodiac's recent loss. Since this is neither a discussion of any recent admin actions nor an opportunity to bash the admins for what they have or haven't done, perhaps we can discuss what the PWA should ideally be empowered to do when a server owner goes rogue?

PWA should cover the topic of remaking an entire server.

I agree. In the event of a conflict - the original owner wants it deleted, the levels staff want to keep it going (and even raise the funds to pay off the hosting bill), who should the PWA support? Is it the Owner's content to delete as they see fit? Is it the levels staff's to use despite the Owner's wishes? What if the levels staff split? What if two servers spontaneously arise, each using levels quite similar to a recently-sabotaged server? What if a levels admin starts his own server without the previous owner's permission?

Personally, I think ideally projects should be sorted by genre and compatible projects should be combined - if two people want to make medeval comical servers, there's one Monkey Island server, and if two people want to make space operas, there's one Star Wars server...

I say everyone should just model after Maloria:
No one gets RC except for the Manager and graphics people (because they can't use this next solution).
All development positions (except for graphic artists) use in-game tools to create and "upload" their content.

No RCs for the win! It is a thing of the future!

What's the difference between a staff member using RC's built-in functions to do their work over using custom tools that do the exact same thing on client?

While in structure it will certainly prevent the problem from arising - if no levels team has the physical ability to resurrect a deleted server, they bloody well won't - is that really a good thing? If Jimmy deleted Hypothetica, would it really be amiss for Billy to upload it again? What's in Graal's best interest, and what does Graal owe Jimmy? Or Billy? Or the players?