The best staff organization system ever.

[Googi]

This thread contains the best staff organization system ever. If you're a server manager, implementing this system will greatly reduce corruption on your server. However, you won't actually implement is because you are afraid of losing the power that this system would require you to divest.

The system is based on the following premises:

- Nobody (including, of course, myself) is truly immune from being corrupted by the possession of power. Being corrupted by power is an inevitability for all who possess it. Of course, the server managers reading this believe they are specially immune to this rule (they aren't), and that they will be able to "get tough" with the guy they've been friends with for over a year when it turns out that he's corrupted (they won't).

- There is no reason developers should have the tools of rule enforcement simply because they are developers.

Accepting these premises, corruption can be reduced by reducing the power possessed by players (and in particular, individual players).

1. The enforcement of rules should be outsourced to NPCs as much as possible. There should be as many anti-scamming and auto-hack-detection mechanisms in place. On 2K1, this would mean owner tags on rocks. Whenever any kind of problem arises with any form of bug abuse or related problems with players, the immediate answer must always, always, always, be to try to script your way out.

2. Developers would be entitled only to powers related to developments (pretty much just warpto, FTP and update level). As in, they wouldn't be able to ban and jail.

3. The server manager shouldn't enforce rules on average players (which means the server manager also wouldn't be banning or jailing non-staff players).

4. Log as much as possible. If you can log it, you should log it. The only exception would be if logging something would cause unacceptable stress on your NPCServer.

5. Ultimately, there still needs to be something like GPs. Rather than being appointed, there should be an elected GP council, with members elected until they quit, resign, or are recalled (so there would be no set elections for the entire council* or anything, only individual recall elections.) Any player could be elected, including developers and the server manager. The council would create the rules as well as enforce them (but obviously wouldn't be allowed to change the recall rules). Many people challenge that electing staff is unlikely to result in the best candidate being picked. This is true, but the record of the staff-appointment system is pretty dismal in that regard too. This at least allows the players to get the kind of rules and enforcement they want, and if they mess up then it's their own responsibility.

Individual GPs wouldn't enforce the rules directly, but rather players would report infractions and the GP council would examine the evidence, both that produced by the player(s) and the logs (see proposal 4). Then they would vote on whether a rule infraction has occured and what the punishment should be (obviously they wouldn't all gather together in a room and vote. Voting would probably take place throughout the day, where one GP tells another about it, then that GP checks out the evidence and makes a vote, until a consensus is formed). Because of the increased work in enforcing the rules, it is probably best that punishments tend to be fairly harsh, and the council may even choose to make a rule against ridiculous accusations.

For things like hacking where immediate measures are required, a single GP can temporarily ban the offender, after which evidence would be looked at and a vote would take place among the other GPs.

GPs wouldn't enforce the rules on themselves, rather the server manager would. Alternately, it could also be possible to have an appointee or someone elected to deal with GPs breaking the rules and/or GP corruption.

* If implemented on a server already up and running, then an initial election for the entire council should take place (I prefer a system where each player can vote for a number of candidates equal to the total number of council positions available, but being creative is fine too). If implemented on a new server, the initial council would have to be appointees.

6. FAQ and Events Team (if the server has them) would be hired pretty much like normal. Usually be a chief appointed by the manager. Of course, neither them nor their chiefs would have enforcement powers. (Although events team members would be able to remove disrupters from events, but not jail them. See proposal 1.)

Notable problems:

- The recall mechanism remains undefined (Maybe I'll come up with one tomorrow)

- People can get their friends from other servers to vote for them or the candidate they like. Can be dealt with somewhat by requiring voters to have a certain amount of online time (the second-place candidate could pretty much be relied on to make sure the winning candidate won with legitimate votes.) But even then there's problems like ex-players coming back just to vote, etc.

- Whoever oversees the GPs could try to use their power to manipulate their actions. The threat is lessened by having an elected and recallable overseer. Ultimately, it may really be better to have the other GPs deal with allegations against a GP. The suggestion of an overseer is the suggestion I am the least certain of in this entire document.

Since these proposals will never actually be implemented on a server, this thread isn't really a suggestion but rather a challenge for anyone who disagrees with me to prove that the current system is superior or to create their own system and prove that it's superior to this one.