Removing the command whitelists of players that haven't played for a year or more.

[Omicega]

9 hours ago, geeves said:

I agree with the idea, and I think the intent is to prevent command players who don't have an idea what's going on from hotdropping into a canon lore event, which I always think is rude and silly.

This. I don't know if I'd support this at all were this not the case, but even in my time here on Aurora I've seen at least one instance where a captain joined out of nowhere for an event round, had only a vague idea what was going on, was controversial in their decision-making (or, again, was just totally out of the mindset and lore context for the canon event), and then disappeared back into thin air after sniping the slot.

The period to be eligible for removal is a full year, too. I don't see how anyone can seriously suggest that that's too short a timeframe to have it removed. It takes a week at most to get it back, and you can play command just the same as before during the trial period itself too.

[Marlon P.]

Would it be fair to strip the whitelists of those in this thread who say theyre easy to get back, since it wont seem to be a problem? I doubt they would agree - where my point here is to give a sense of how arbitrary this would feel for affected players. Namely frustrated at an arbitrary punishment.

Its difficult to go through command apps if you're a casual player because you have to play enough to be observed.

The more auroras whitelist standards focus on the always-online, the smaller the command population will be. And a small command population feedbacks into the issue by making rounds more difficult for the players on average, further incrementally harming population growth/retention.

This kind of step is a big advertisement that irregular players are not to be trusted.

Edited January 19, 2022 by Marlon P.

[Captain Gecko]

Don't really know what to think of it to be honest... I don't like this, but I don't know what else we could do to prevent to problem discribed. However, I may have an idea, a sort of compromise.

The main point of contention here seems to be mostly about lore, not gameplay. However, a Command WL's point is to make sure that a player is fit for the role in both aspects... So let's only focus on the lore.

Instead of outright stripping the WL, just lock it. Players have it but can't play Command for now. They have to redo the command WL (or perhaps a new kind of app, like a "Command unlocking app"), so that we can make sure that they are aware of the current lore changes and such, and then we unlock it, skipping the "testing" phase that follows since we know that, if they obtained the WL in the first place, they must know what they are doing in the first place.

[MattAtlas]

6 hours ago, Marlon P. said:

The more auroras whitelist standards focus on the always-online, the smaller the command population will be. And a small command population feedbacks into the issue by making rounds more difficult for the players on average, further incrementally harming population growth/retention.

I'm not asking that people be always online; you don't even have to play command to retain your whitelist. The strip is a one time thing for people that haven't played at all in a year. Our current command population is fine and is not made up of any of the people that this strip would target. Functionally, this would change nothing about the current pop, and would only prevent issues in the NBT.

6 hours ago, Marlon P. said:

Can we strip the whitelists of those in this thread who say theyre easy to get back, since it wont seem to be a problem? Otherwise some way to provide empathy for feeling frustrated at an arbitrary punishment?

It isn't a punishment. Nothing is being held against you in the future. Reapply and you can get it back without issue.

4 hours ago, Captain Gecko said:

They have to redo the command WL (or perhaps a new kind of app, like a "Command unlocking app"), so that we can make sure that they are aware of the current lore changes and such, and then we unlock it, skipping the "testing" phase that follows since we know that, if they obtained the WL in the first place, they must know what they are doing in the first place.

This doesn't make it any easier for them. If they have to make a whitelist application, at that point we should trial them to see if they're actually up to par. There are no big restrictions on what you can and can't do on a trial, functionally it's the same as having the whitelist.

[Carver]

Why not just have a pop-up for players on their first log-in with a Command Whitelist after X amount of time where they get a link to the wiki, and some extremely relevant lore blurbs (Foundation of the SCC, Fracturing of Sol, Phoron Scarcity being the three primary things) to bring them up to speed?

[SatinsPristOTD]

16 hours ago, Marlon P. said:

Would it be fair to strip the whitelists of those in this thread who say theyre easy to get back, since it wont seem to be a problem? I doubt they would agree - where my point here is to give a sense of how arbitrary this would feel for affected players. Namely frustrated at an arbitrary punishment.

 

This is entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand and bordering on a Strawman tactic. Don't do that to people just because they agree with a policy proposal. It's not proper etiquette.

The strip is for anyone that hasn't even peeked into this community in a year. The only argument against it is "It's a hassle for someone to redo their Command application." Fine, put forth some effort into the community one day out of 365 days and avoid the hassle.

Also, Applications aren't a hassle. They're just a necessary process. Weakening down the word "hassle" is a bit much. The "old Command players" that we're gatekeeping here already have to do the "hassle" of catching back up on the community. A trial, which isn't that difficult to manage, wouldn't be any more of a "hassle".

And to answer your strawman: I'm fine with having my whitelist put back on trial for the sake of this silly argument. It's not that big of a "hassle".

[Marlon P.]

2 hours ago, Carver said:

Why not just have a pop-up for players on their first log-in with a Command Whitelist after X amount of time where they get a link to the wiki, and some extremely relevant lore blurbs (Foundation of the SCC, Fracturing of Sol, Phoron Scarcity being the three primary things) to bring them up to speed?

I agree with this. Theres no love lost from me they misbehave after such a chance offered 

1 hour ago, SatinsPristOTD said:

This is entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand and bordering on a Strawman tactic. Don't do that to people just because they agree with a policy proposal. It's not proper etiquette.

I agree. Bad phrasing; no beef intended. 

What i meant to ask is if you can understand why it would feel arbitrary to an affected person, and if you feel that this could also weird out our casual players who, though not directed by this, may feel unwelcome in a command role because of general inactivity?

Thank you for engaging with the post even when i wrote my thoughts out badly 

Edited January 20, 2022 by Marlon P.

[SatinsPristOTD]

28 minutes ago, Marlon P. said:

I agree with this. Theres no love lost from me they misbehave after such a chance offered 

I agree. Bad phrasing; no beef intended. 

What i meant to ask is if you can understand why it would feel arbitrary to an affected person, and if you feel that this could also weird out our casual players who, though not directed by this, may feel unwelcome in a command role because of general inactivity?

Thank you for engaging with the post even when i wrote my thoughts out badly 

No beef taken! I suffer from "Resting bitch face" in text so I gotcha.

I can see it if these said.... casual players act highly irrational and don't look at the bigger picture. Surely you don't mean to tell me there's someone out there that will take it as an attack on their personal character for us to remove their whitelist for inactivity in the community.

Maybe I'm older now, and I have a disconnection to younger players. I can't see getting worked up and upset over something that was done with sound reason, and isn't a permaban or even a ban ban for that matter.

There's no warnings, notes, or bans in place. Someone logical would hear the reason behind their lost WL and go "Oh, well, that's unfortunate, but I get it. I'll reapply."

[Reyjakai]

On 18/01/2022 at 12:27, Garnascus said:

When would you remove the whitelist of someone based on their conduct that did not result in a ban?

Well I've had that happen for IC reasons that resulted in a warning, and not a ban. It was temporary, however, and was specifically placed on a single character, not on me as a player, so it's a little iffy. It was also technically enforced in an RP way, not an actual lockout of command.

But I agree with you that Command probably shouldn't be whitelist stripped for inactivity, since I'd argue that it has more to do with your ability to roleplay than it does as your absolute knowledge of game mechanics. People are trying to deal with incompetent command, and trying to figure out if someone is just having an off day or if they're inappropriately command is different. If someone is just genuinely not fit to play a command role, I'd rather you strip it from them when they play rather than strip it from them based only on if they haven't played in a while.

If someone hasn't played in 3 years, what's the harm in leaving them whitelisted? This seems like we have an endless supply of people who have command access, and only pop up occasionally and are rusty. If that's the case, how many people are we reasonably talking about that this affects? It seems to me like the real issue is with bad players having command, not command being enabled for too many people.

[CampinKiller]

How many whitelists is this potentially affecting?

[Butterrobber202]

Now that my idiotic brain took the time to comprehend to understand this is a one-off and to reduce any ignorant oldies from messing up NBT's launch, I support it.

I'd rather not have some no-name 2018 captain return to crash us into the CRZ and start a war.

[ToasterStrudel]

Resident "I haven't played in a while but.." person here, I'll likely be on the list of people affected by this change so I thought I'd toss in my two cents.

Why not just handle this on a case-by-case basis? I feel like this is a blanket fix for something that really seems to be more catered towards specific issues. I feel like removal of whitelists should only come should someone not be able to perform the role or are refusing to adhere to new lore, not just "if you haven't played for x amount of time, you've lost it."

You don't toss all the apples in the basket just because some MIGHT be bad/rotten.

[MattAtlas]

33 minutes ago, ToasterStrudel said:

Why not just handle this on a case-by-case basis? I feel like this is a blanket fix for something that really seems to be more catered towards specific issues. I feel like removal of whitelists should only come should someone not be able to perform the role or are refusing to adhere to new lore, not just "if you haven't played for x amount of time, you've lost it."

Because by the time we can nab someone's whitelist for messing up an entire round, the damage's already been done, and I'd like the NBT tests to be as smooth as possible.

[JaceyLessThan3]

On 19/01/2022 at 07:35, MattAtlas said:

Our current command population is fine [...]

Our current command population is not fine. Only two or three rounds a day, during peak times, will have a full command roster, and many rounds during the day have no command at all.

[MattAtlas]

23 minutes ago, JaceyLessThan3 said:

Our current command population is not fine. Only two or three rounds a day, during peak times, will have a full command roster, and many rounds during the day have no command at all.

You don't need a full command roster.

Many rounds during the day have no population at all because most of the day is lowpop. Highpop is in no shortage of command members that are actually necessary for the game to function at its best - e.g HoS and Captain.

[JaceyLessThan3]

Sorry, forgot that only Security is important.

[Marlon P.]

What are the exact parameters for the strip?

0 playtime in a consecutive 365 days? If hypothetical John Doe ghosted for 2 hours 260 days ago, would his WL be removed or skipped over?

If Jane played for 3 hours once 360 days ago, would she be skipped over or removed?

Edited January 20, 2022 by Marlon P.

[Zelmana]

The solution to all these "would-be-returning" players discussing how this will impact them have a solution.
Play.
Return early. If you are so concerned about losing your privileges of Command due to being away for so long... return early and catch up. My main concern is something others have stated here as well- a returning player playing a whomegalul or returning a big-wig character. Where have they been? Are they caught up on the events that have been happening? As much as I'd like to say I trust our whitelisted people to catch up on lore and even reintegrate into the server correctly after an NBT I don't.

Command should at least stay relatively active. If you haven't played in a year that's crazy. Hardly anyone will recognize your character. Command is typically played by characters who have in-game developed over time into those positions. If no one but 1 person out of a potential 60 person lobby in NBT recognizes you- that's kinda sucky. You're removing the ability for a well-established (and not just well-established, but well-maintained and continually well-known) character to be in the round.

[Zelmana]

And if people are concerned that "well that just means that players who have remained here and not left the server will be prioritized". Good. They should be. I don't see why we should permit these characters to have a staff gold-standard of roleplay if they have not demonstrated that ability in over a year. Especially with all the mechanics and lore changes.

[Caelphon]

I agree with most of the points that have been brought up regarding the pro-striping argument. We’ve had circumstances in the past where people do not play for months on end just to join and take up valuable slots during events. It’s frankly annoying and really fucks with event storylines, which we don’t need in the Launch Arc for NBT. 

[Caelphon]

Double posting, yes.

 

Additionally I don’t think people grasp how long one year is. That is a consecutive 365 days without playing ANY rounds whatsoever. A lot can change in a year on Aurora, and I’m going to admit I don’t trust people who going on a year-long hiatus to join again and be up to date. You make a choice to not play for 365 days, it’s not a mistake.

I understand that real life takes precedence, and it should. But do not forget the server moves forward as does your real life. If you cannot make one round in an entire year, then you’re best off building trust within the community again, and become adapted to our lore.

[JaceyLessThan3]

While I wanted to disagree with the assertion that "command population is fine", I don't disagree with the reasoning for the purge. I suspect that people who have been gone for a year aren't going to come back longterm anyway.

[MattAtlas]

4 hours ago, JaceyLessThan3 said:

Sorry, forgot that only Security is important.

Let's not pretend that this is what I said, please. "Highpop is in no shortage of command members that are actually necessary for the game to function at its best - e.g HoS and Captain." does not mean that only security is important, not only because the Captain's not security, but also because I said "necessary for the game to function at its best". Security, the main force counteracting antagonists, and thus the main gameplay loop is handicapped without a Head of Security (doubly so if they're without a warden).

An engineering department with no CE runs without issues of that caliber. Same with medical and CMOs. Same with scientists and RDs.

I said the command population is fine as is as a reply to someone mentioning that this strip would thin it out more. It's not the case.

[Arrow768]

I am against a strip of command whitelists that is not covered by our existing rules.

The main argument for a strip is that command players who have not played in a year will not familiarize them with the changed mechanics, rules and lore.
I do not believe that this warrants a strip as all of them have already shown the capability to write a backstroy that is in line with the lore and familiarize themselves with existing mechanics. (They had to learn those from somewhere aswell)

It it my believe that the majority of command players will familiarize themselves with the changed aspects of the game before they play a command role.
Those that do not, can be dealt with administrative actions.

A accelerated whitelist process (where former whitelistees only have to do the trial) is imho not contributing to resolve this issue, as anything that should get a trial denied should also result in a whitelist strip.

Instead I suggest to enforce the existing rules and strip the whitelists of those that have not linked their forum account to their byond account (as required by the existing whitelist rules).

[Marlon P.]

Im sniping a reply this post so soon because arrow mentioned it to me. Ive been pretty feisty and want to make clear that since its enforcing an existing rule i am all in favor of what arrow has said in terms of stripping whitelists.

Edited January 20, 2022 by Marlon P.