|
This was all typed up by Worthe in response to CriticalThought on the Risk Universalis III group wall. It is mostly about the complaints of rank changes and the rules that flash_drive created for the game. I only edited it slightly to organize it.
(Section I) Implications
----------------------------------
One of the implications was that there are no provisions that help prevent people faking evidence through inspect element. Most evidence would be in the form of screenshots of in-game abuse, so that doesn't really apply there. Other forms of abuse, like abuse of group powers in any way, are easily find-able through the audit log. Other than that, there's really not much we can do about preventing "fake" evidence.
Another thing that I guess you implied was that rules aren't required for risk and that "power has gotten to the head of those in charge". Rules are required for a game that relies heavily on player-on-player interaction and for the most part, doesn't rely on fully scripted game play mechanics. The kinds of rules that are in place, like "don't grief" or "don't gmod" have been in place in dozens of groups for around a decade.
Conclusion: Those rules have stood the test of time and are still relevant, in addition to laying the framework for acceptable game play. As for the"power has gotten to the head of those in charge" part... There was a behind the scenes purge that happened in late 2016, which removed/demoted around 20-ish people from the moderator, admin, and senior admin rank. The purge was a calculation of how much people liked the people in that rank, and was fairly successful, removing obviously bad and inactive people.
(Section II) The Senior Admins
----------------------------------
I fully admit that the people in the senior administration council aren't all the smartest or knowledgeable people. That's not what their job is or supposed to be. They are senior admins because they are well-rounded individuals who know how to be personable, helpful, and skillful in handling administrative tasks.
I'll go through each of them individually, saying why I chose them to be senior admins.
1. ImperialClique is an old acquaintance of mine who ran the Pro Mini Builders for several years. He is a veteran in the minibuilding community and ran the group very successfully.
2. Prestonk is reserved and very personable, able to get along with anyone. He is a foot soldier who does what is asked of him, and gives well thought-out input when you ask him something.
3. Peepnpeep2 is smart and collaborative, he will help you do something when you need help to do something. Ontop of that, he's a very nice person who will go to any lengths to make sure that players are treated fairly.
4. Manlyzombie123 is an incredibly smart person and well-versed in most eras of history. If you are doubting someone's motives for roleplaying something, he's your guy. He's also very nice and helpful as well.
5. Panzerbashswag is always in the midst of everything, just making sure that nobody is acting a fool. He does his job and is a pretty good foot soldier.
Conclusion: These five people, are more than qualified to be in the senior leadership and I am very confident that they are doing a good job and will continue doing a good job.
(Section III) ROBLOX's Rules
----------------------------------
As for free speech, collaboration, and versatility that you mentioned.. I'll say outright that being openly racist and hateful towards players does not fall under ROBLOX Terms of Service and the administrators are well within their right to punish you for acting out like so. Anything that falls under ROBLOX Terms of Service is fair game, so don't break THOSE rules. I don't know what you mean by collaboration or versatility, so idk about that.
(Section IV) General Complaints
----------------------------------
>says that the Senior Admins must also follow due process
>proceeds to not outline who they are answerable to, since they are clearly not answerable to the RISK community
The senior admins answer to the Community Manager and FIash_Drive, and that's it.
>says that the new RISK guidelines are fair for everyone
>proceeds to not request a consensus on them from everyone
RISK isn't a democracy, so I don't know what the heck you are on about. It is common knowledge that RISK is not a democracy.
>says that the new Senior Admin will be good
>proceeds to not promote AlexanderAbendroth, possibly the most intelligent person in RISK
Just because you're the "most intelligent person in RISK" doesn't mean you're qualified to be a senior admin. Just look at Castlemore, an incredibly smart person, but a terrible, terrible admin.
>says that the RISK experienced rank will be improved
>proceeds to not change the way that Experienced Participants are ranked and then purges, thus getting rid of the good Exps
We had an amnesty period and an entire application process, what more do you want..
>says that the Senior Representatives represent their people fairly
>proceeds to make it a non-elected position, with the rank holders having no control over who represents them
Again, RISK is not a democracy. [Nor is it a republic.]
>says that RISK is not controlled by a few people at the top
>proceeds to make the person in charge of the few people at the top the most important Senior Representative
RISK IS controlled by a few people at the top. I don't understand how you're mistaking the group for a democracy, when it is obviously not.
(Section V) General Conclusion
----------------------------------
Sorry for all the posts, CriticalThought's implications or questions or whatever they were, were never really answered. Critical, for once in your entire career on RISK, stop complaining and actually do something for christ's sake. All I hear from you is "problem, problem, problem" and no "solution, solution, solution". Formulate some solutions to your perceived problems, present it to your representative, and try to be useful.
[A short message from Peepnpeep2]
Here's a little lesson in Riskery
This is going down in history... sorry I had to meme. |