Skull132

It's unfortunate that I cannot comment on the google doc but lemme point out one thing. This is dumb. Please realize that there is no obligation to approach players personally regarding lore changes. Granted, it is preferred that a public announcement/discussion be held at some early-to-mid stage of a rewrite and that's happening right now it seems(?). But ergh. This last point is meh v.v

Edited this to make it more legible. [mention]YouJustGotOwened[/mention]

[mention]incognitojesus[/mention] plz

https://kama.skullnet.me/index.php/s/1XIipOlMvFQooti Binned at the request of the author, and because it's not really workable/concrete.

they're sisters, tho.

Added a rule: The reasoning behind a suggestion should be elaborated upon in the initial post to a reasonable extent. This is mostly to avoid the pointless trail of comments that follow from an unexplained suggestion asking for the explanation.

lmao exdee.

Just writing this down for the sake of the record and transparency. Note that with most internal policy, exceptions will exist and they are undertaken on a case-by-case basis. However, the general spirit of this policy states that: Most major features which change gameplay to a large degree and that are merged into the Master branch (pushed live onto the server) are nominally given a grace period of 1 month post-release before making major changes/reverting is permitted. This is due to the fact that the playerbase will take time to adjust to a new feature and for the new feature to settle into place, as it were. It is basically considered a little bit unfair to evaluate a feature that's been actively hyped up or down right after release, as the hype will affect said feature's place in gameplay. Once the hype has settled, a more fair evaluation can be conducted. Thus, the one month limit is for that purpose.

> Lackluster suggestion that doesn't even bother to answer the initial question of, "Why do we want this?" > Is about to get dismissed for lacking said reasoning > Sees that no such rule exists wellokay.jpg No, but, [mention]UnknownMurder[/mention] please do advocate your point beyond simply stating how things should be. Otherwise this'll get binned as missing reasoning.

Also summoning [mention]Garnascus[/mention] and [mention]Shadow[/mention] to participate in this.

Ye, as per revert policy, adding the second dismissal vote. If the gamemodes are an issue after a month from their full release, please make a new thread. +1 vote for dismissal, archiving as well as we reached 2.

Just confirming your thoughts, ye, devs won't look at this from an implementation standpoint until ~a month from now when new map meme is done and we've figured out what direction we want to take next.

Also, because regulations are not dev thing, lemme ping people responsible for maintaining them: [mention]ForgottenTraveller[/mention][mention]Shadow[/mention][mention]Garnascus[/mention]

Regulations in this vain have been discussed before. They're usually invalidated by two points, which I will present to you now: I there no general regulation which covers this conduct? If the latter is true, why must this be implemented as a special exception to the general rule? The primary reason for asking these two questions is to cut down on special exceptions and rule/regulation bloat. In my eyes, if a general rule exists, then exceptions should not be extracted from them unless there is an absoloute necessity. Instead, the general rule should simply be enforced more sternly to those exceptions.

Quick note while we address this next week or so: option C exists: set yourself to spawn at cryogenic storage. Done.

Complaint resolved. For the sake of public record and transparency: Nanako was offered the choice of either being dismissed immediately, or entering a 3 month probationary period, the aim of which would have been to give her a definite deadline on improving her conduct. Considering said conduct has been unchanged for the past 9 months, I considered the setting of a clear end date important. A matter can only be stretched that far. During probation she would have also lost her in-game developer powers due to unrelated matters (specifically, misuse of them). And probation would have ended with a peer review whereby she'd either be given the opportunity to continue working on the team, or denied it. She chose to resign effectively immediately. That closes the complaint.

[mention]Nikov[/mention] The trouble with bulldozers is a hidden one. Myself, Alb, Fowl, and Nanako could probably duke it out for days on end and none of us could give half a shit. We're all roughly in the same boat when it comes to opinions and zeal. But the issue within the development staff arises from the fact that there are developers other than those four on the staff. Printer, Arrow, Lohikar. All of whom actively contribute to the project, both gameplay and systems coding. For others, Nanako's attitude ends up being hostile, grating, and obtuse; considering the fact that according to her own admittance, she likes to dream up extensive longterm plans, without communicating them to the rest of the team mind you, and protect said plans when another developer dares start touching a related matter. The fact that I have woken up to see logs of Nanako vs another developer in altercations that follow, to the letter, what I laid out and require me to make a harsh call of, "We're doing it this way, fuck off and pipe down," is ridiculous and unnecessary. And if continued, it will result in developers who lack the extremely thick skin to handle this shit to leave. And believe you me. I do not want them to leave. Nanako may be a prolific coder, but not only do we now have other coders who match her work in quantity while exceeding it immensely in quality, a larger team of less prolific coders is able to cover a whole lot more ground as long as projects are properly organized. And as can be seen with our handling of the multiZ project, we're slowly heading towards a good level of organization and project management. (Yes, issues exist, to include the one you, Nikov, told me about this morning, but those are growing pains and will be solved.) There's also the fun fact that hostility breeds hostility. The more Nanako pushes, the further she gets pushed back, and so the harder she pushes. It's merely human nature, plain and simple. But, once again, the most unfortunate fact about this whole ordeal is that in her absence, the team functioned exceptionally well and coordinated, internally. What's more unfortunate is that I have been a little too forgiving in my assessment of the situation. A major internal discussion regarding attitudes and team cohesion, in January 2017. Considering the fact that the admins have been, over the past few days, posting snippets from #developers to me dating to March and February showcasing continuation of the same-old shit. Idno, has there been any change in your conduct, Nanako? You tell me. One thing should be understood when reading all of this. What I speak of here is never really publicly shown, as it happens on staff discord within closed doors. Not even Delta is fully aware of this, because he has no right nor need to be. Internal and external standing can be two very separate things, and while someone might be a shining star outside of the community, addressing feedback and developing projects with the community, them being a complete reverse of that internally will lead to only one outcome: dismissal for failure to function as a member of the team. It is something which has happened to a short list of moderators and administrators in the past, and has usually benefited the team, and through that, the community, in the long run. If this continues, and Nanako does not change her attitude nor outlook, then the only other possible outcome is loss of other developers as they are unable to continue working in such an environment. Which will raise Nanako's busfactor and make the team easier to topple. The lower the busfactor of individuals, the better. Also, re: [mention]Scheveningen[/mention]. You're off key. Read what Nikov stated. The complaint as you have started to pursue it will amount to inaction, as it's literally falling apart into dribble due to the fact that you have an inherent bias against Nanako and focus on her vices which only form like a few instances and on their own, matter for naught.

Implementation: - A vote is only stopped if there are non-AFK admins on the server. - Admins are notified of a vote attempt with a bwoink, so they can review and address the problem.

Double posting because continuity. Might I add that the aforementioned developers that you have these arguments with otherwise handle themselves just fine. And did for the month or two that you were away. Even where Fowl is concerned. Again, I highly suggest reading over the day to day business of #developers to see how it was.

This is a weird thing to implement on its own. It should be rolled into a greater project about prosthetics and having them provide alternate functionality.

As much as he could have backed off, so could have you. This specific instance is the pot calling the kettle black. But as far as the general, fuck-off long argument count goes. You're well in the lead. You're pretty much doing what you always do in situations like this, deflecting. It doesn't work well when the subject of the discussion is you and your actions, not those of Fowl. Further, the idea of establishing protocol to solve disagreements is unfortunately laughable to me. It should be simple: if something goes too far, back out and go to superior. I have told you this verbatim at least twice. Probably a whole tonne more. Votes are arbitrary and stifling to the creativity of the team: they force conformity instead of encouraging active problem solving. It's an agreement of, "We're stuck with either implementing this shitty solution, or not solving the problem." When the viewpoint should actually be, "What's the third option we're not seeing?" Public votes will for minor ass shit will not become a thing anyways. You know my views on this. And discussing them will exceed to bounds of this complaint. I suggest you focus on the actual subject matter here. As per the rules, stay on topic. You cannot deny the fact that you've had large, often needless and bullheaded arguments with members of the development team other than Fowl. You cannot deny the fact that they find those arguments draining and pointless, rightfully so. You cannot deny the fact that this is not positive for the team's ability to function. Surely you cannot deny these things. This whining of, "I don't have the right tools to solve this issue!" is stupid, considering just how many times we've gone over all of this before. Need I remind you that I went over conflict resolution with you, one on one, some 4 months ago? I outlined precisely what to do and how to do it.

Using doors is going to end up with a shit tonne more assholes getting shot. And grabbing people to cuff them was deemed a, "Lolno" eversince Bay implemented it. Cuffees uncuffing eachother might be worth investigating, it could be good RPs. As long as it takes a bit. Also requires people to be mindful of shoving a bunch of people into the same space without supervision.

I'll forego a length wall of text. You can find my summarization of issues I have with you in my final post in your PR. It is constant and despite the fact that we had a heart-to-heart over this somewhere in the first quarter of 2017 (I forget the exact month tbh, uni makes the time become a blur), you've returned with little change. Your second post, as I mentioned, is wasted breath. No one is questioning your contributions to the community, nor your apparent commitment to it. It's great, fantastic, all of that, truly. But that doesn't remove the underlying issue that you are the developer least capable of functioning within our development team. You were away for a good couple of months, but I implore you to look at the archives of #developers in the mean time. What you'll see there is a general lack of massive wall-of-text style arguments, minus the short occasional bout I have with Fowl. So I resent the argument that developer chat has to be filled with arguments, it doesn't. The very unfortunate, but very real fact is that the team can function amazingly smoothly when you are not present. You are an individual. You want to do your own thing your own way. Generally speaking, this is fine. Under specific circumstances, it is commendable and useful. But, as the team grows, there are more than just Skull and Head Admins to pay attention to. And remaining an individual will lead to trouble with maintaining reasonable relations with your colleagues. Which will lead this issue creeping up again and again in one form or another. Speaking of repetition. How many times have we had to discuss this? Like ye, you've taken unnecessary shit back in 2016. But have you honestly not noticed a pattern here? I was actually hopeful that we had managed to put a stop to this back in February/March, when we, as a team, had a chat with you. But the current prospects are not looking good. Granted, you've only been active for a week, but wew. The signs are not good.

Gonna post quotes of two local rules while we wait for [mention]Nanako[/mention] to address this. Consider this a reminder if you're going to post here. Stay on topic, this means that the posts should be constructive and focus on the complaint itself only. Any off-topic post made will be removed and met with a reminder to remain on topic. Do not use ad hominem. This means do not attack a person's character (character in this case meaning the mental and moral qualities distinctive to an individual). You are expected to argue the presented ideas, not the person. If someone were to attack you, don’t take matters into your own hands, report it to us.

This sounds like a fun compromise. Hmmm.