I'm not especially concerned, to be frank. :oo:

Staff still? Haven't seen him on in months.

Well, that rings true for most of the administration - and that's what I hope to address with this thread...



What should become of this situation - absent administration?

It's common sense to know what happens with an absent administration: everything falls apart, which has become exponentially obvious over the past two or three years. Something definitely needs to be done.

Simply making a general statement that you'll "rely on feedback" doesn't mean much, especially since you, for some reason, consider surprise important which means that your methodology is one that isn't conducive to generating meaningful feedback. Suppose you get negative feedback, do you abandon what you were doing and try to do something else, or do you continue down the same path believing that success lies at the end of it? What method is there for provably determining which option is the better one in any given case? I can't think of one. Can you?

I don't see how that makes my point moot. Why should anybody believe an approach is effective simply because it's non-typical? If anything, it's reason for even greater suspicion since what is typical is usually typical because it is effective, and more importantly, what is not typical is usually not typical because it is ineffective.

So, just because these threads aren't going anywhere, you're saying we should quit discussing this stuff?

These are the GK forums.
They are used for discussing GK.
Currently, the only thing to discuss about GK is its current failing status.
This is proven with the fact that this topic brings about the most activity to these forums. In fact, without this topic, these forums become very inactive.

Complaining about how "these threads never work" implies you'd like them to stop.
If they were to stop, there'd be no positive results either.
Do you think Stefan will suddenly say "oh, they learned to shut up! I'll reward them by magically fixing GK!"
I don't doubt the fact that Stefan can "magically" fix GK. I trust in his power greatly. But "can" and "will" are two different things.

No, he's not.

He may be staff for GK.
But he's certainly never on GK.

My interests do lie in a certain "shock" factor, yes. But it's the style of shock which is very different - it relies on a lot of details. So in a sense its "modular" shock. So tweaking it to please the majority shouldn't be difficult - if it doesn't to begin with.
I'm not going to explain the details of my intended storyline devices, so you have all the reason you like to be suspicious. But, given the chance, I will release some and you will have lots to decide upon at that point.

You say this is how things will be, but you don't give any examples to prove it.

And I don't intend to, I don't want to even hint to the nature of the work I've done so far - and I have made gross efforts to prevent the direction which I am heading from being known. I don't intend to share them now to indulge your curiosity, or validate your concern, be that the case.

So essentially, your argument for being server manager is something like "I'm going to revive GK. I'm not going to tell you how, and I'm not going to give reasoning for why my method will be effective, but you should just believe I can do it because I'm me."

You were discussing my development, and so was I. Misconstruing the nature of the conversation is fairly petty.

My interest in management is simply to secure control over my work, and to ensure a level of activity is maintained on GK - which we haven't seen for a long time. Although I can tell you now I would be very picky about who has access to development on debug - not for the sake of elitism but to ensure a high level of quality. I've already said I am not especially interested in managing, unless it's the only way to control my developments (and it doesn't seem to be the only way). But there is the problem that there is no one actively seeking it who is especially suitable, and of those others I feel I am among the more suitable.

I've made the options - as best as I see them - very clear but I'll do it again:

• Stefan manages while searching for a suitable manager
• Stefan appoints the most suitable from the current selection
• Bjorn is forced to return

Your suitability or insuitability for the manager position wasn't really the point I was trying to make, I only brought it up because it had become a central part of the thread. What I'm most trying to ask is, would you agree that you haven't really given the players any reason to believe you or your developments will revive the server?

No, but you don't exactly have the best citizenship record.

Well, my work on the easter egg event is a decent example of things to come and a token of "good faith". At this point I don't think they care what they get so long as they get SOMETHING. To be honest I don't care about that - I want to produce because I know my work will be excellent - I want people to enjoy it. So in a way I am not concerned about that.

It doesn't make a difference anyways, even if there is another development team I will still continue my work and release it. I'm not pulling for lead developer here, I just want to make my story. I also happen to have interest in manager, especially if there's potential that it will bring some activity back to the server.

It's really very disappointing that Stefan has so foolishly allowed the server to be neglected for so long.

I asked whether they have any reason to believe your developments will revive the server. Not whether or not they care.

Yes, I addressed that.



You're coming off as a troll, which is unusual for you - I'm a little confused.

The problem is that what you are saying,what you believe you're saying, and even ultimately what I believe you're saying, may all be different things. Should I view those statements as "I helped make something that didn't do anything to help revive the server and is now inaccessible," and "I just want to do what I want and don't really care whether or not it revives the server" and assume your answer is "no"?

I suppose normally I would accept an answer like the one you gave. In this case I'd like something close to yes or no though.

The easter event was creatively my creation, and technical the efforts of Tig. I determined every aspect of it and Tig did all of the coding/gani work. Anyone who had a chance to try it will probably agree it was very fun, especially since it was made in two days (when we found out Bjorn was not going to do anything).

Based on the success of this event, despite a length of time to prepare, I think any work I have a chance to prepare will be excellent. And I believe this excellence will interest many people - hopefully enough to "revive" the server. But I doubt we will see it back to the 150+ people it used to be - probably because the novelty of gold servers have worn off now that they have this retarded tiered account payment bull ****.

The answer then is the same as the answer to the question of whether or not we believe some sort of commitment to "excellence" will revive the server?

I don't think it has been the topic of any conversations previous to this - once again you strike me as unusual, as though being underhanded. I'm not sure what you're playing at.



None the less, no I don't think excellence alone will garner any interest in Graal Kingdoms, but I do intend to maintain a level of excellence regardless of the role I play in GK (whether it be developer or manager). But I do think creativity - especially in the area of "Entertaining Novelty" is very important... this is a game afterall; fun should be expected. I'm pretty good at it, and I am also not very worried about this either.

I'm just trying to establish why players should or shouldn't believe you know how to revive GK in a way that the players can understand. That's all.

How about you list the things you are willing to say that you believe you would provide and will achieve server revival.

I can't see any harm in that, so yea - okay.

1. I have a story already determined, it simply needs to be developed and released. A good part of the introduction has been developed. There are still some technical problems to be met but my scripters have given me some good signs of solutions. The story isn't complete but a good "chapter" of it is.
   
2. I guess my insistence of excellence is a strong point, since previously a lot of Bjorn's work and others was simply pushed out for the sake of keeping face. This will also be damaging - A lot of people who are excited but not capable may be insulted when I refuse to allow them to work - although I'm always willing to listen to creative input.
   
3. When I make ideas I typically insist my developers make them to be as "agile" and "flexible" as possible so that they may be reused in a modular fashion - easily modified to work in another situation. I find a lot of programmers make things to make them, without considering future improvements or even slight modifications - later saying a simple modification is "impossible" because it would require a rewrite. Basically this means lots of content has the potential of being made, even when new scripts are being concentrate on.
   
4. I'm hoping to move toward a storyline which, if interested, the player can actively monitor - even take part in. Such that development meets a regular schedule so any new "releases" in the storyline show more of the story, like a television show. I've never been a fan of stories as they were presented in quest-oriented fashions in video games... a presentation I find entirely infuriating.
   
5. The content I hope to introduce will be long term instalments which invite the players to work as a community rather than individuals. This isn't kingdom specific. So you're getting your long term content, even if development is on hold or extended past schedule and you have people working together. On the topic of "working together" it's my observation that "happy friendly" is not always the way community is made - rivalries and even negative emotions strongly tie people together. I'm not going to breed situations for negative emotions but I do think they're very important in forming and influence their counterparts.
   
6. The tough part is the "germankr3w" (including Stefan) have a tendency to water things down into a lame fest - which is what I mean when I say "creative control". I don't want them interfering with the nature of my development and it the only stipulation I require in the agreement to develop on Graal Kingdoms. It's the only thing I'm concerned about in this whole thing.

I think that greatly outlines my intent and development up to this point. I hope it answers any questions you had and doesn't inspire too many new ones. :p

Dear god Stephen give it a rest. Okay, you want to be the manager of GK, we get it.

I was asked to list the reasons I think I should be manager. Please be reasonible and consider what you're saying before you post - you may refer to my guide I have previously outlined if you like. :p

Stephen is too paranoid for me.

I am sorry but Tig is the better candidate. He cares more about GK then Stephen does and has shown it more then once on debug and on here.

@Sam: Frankly Tig gets stuff done. Stephen has limited experience and I don't think he would be good.

@Stephen: yes your easter idea was good but didn't you have to get help from Tig to finish it off. When i was on Tig had to ask Stefan for access to stuff.

As previously said - Tig scripted all of it. The concept was mine, however. It was a team effort, with the majority of the labour being done by Tig. Ignoring trivial details like that I think the final results were excellent.

So yes, I imagine you did see Tig tell Stefan what he needed to upload to main. But this is precisely why I think you cannot be trusted - you speak too loosely of the private, sometimes significant, events which occur on GK. >_<

Yes, I am still staff for GK. And I am doing still support.
A manager for GK must be a very trustworthy person. A person that wasn't banned for cheating or such things.
This person has also to be mental balanced. I don't think the persons you discussed as a potential manager posses all these requirements.

Seriously, why do you care? You don't even log on to GK... ever... Let go of the past. It's okay, really.

Rep+

I've got not too unrecent logs which deny that its your past, you are too obviously a janushead.

Not necessarily. In this case, GK doesn't even need a traditional "server manager". Bjorn could even keep his spot, and then Stephen or whoever could be Development Manager. They wouldn't even need access to to the main server, in theory (though it would help I'm sure). They could manage the development, and, in the case they start to abuse, there is nothing they can delete, etc.

I'm guessing you haven't had the luxury of speaking to Bjorn recently - he's a cranky jerk now a days. x_x

i vote stephen

thats no surprise

That made almost no sense at all, but please, share those logs with me, because right now I'm doubting you have any idea what you're talking about. By the way, what's a janushead?

Ask wikipedia for things beyond your common knowledge :)

1. That's ONLY your own opinion on what a manager should be.
2. The general consensus here is that any staff, especially one with a position such as your own, should be active enough so that we don't even have to question whether or not you're doing anything.

Look at yourself before criticizing others.

Bjorn has always been a jerk. Suggest something or ask for something and you'll get a reply as a stupid emote such as "x-x".

Also, If Stephen becomes Manager, I get Dustari. Stephen4Manager.

Is there something I am missing?

Thank you, Darklux, I'm flattered you think I'm a Janushead. :D

I bow down to thee, oh god of the doors :)