Aurora Heads of Staff - Whitelist restriction

[Guest]

I've kinda noticed that there are players that don't even know there is a section of the forums reserved for head of staff whitelisted players. This is causing some players to be partially excluded from discussions that directly impact them regardless. Some players have even displayed disdain and protest for this decision in the past.

I suggest, if not complete removal of the restriction, that non-whitelisted players are at least allowed to view the discussions for sake of clarity around heads of staff decisions and increased dialogue.

Edit: I swear, I will never understand what qualifies as a discussion and what as suggestion.

Edited April 20, 2015 by Guest

[Jamini]

B-b-but m-m-my sekret f-forums!

...

Agree totally with this. Giving folks read-only access (at minimum) to the head of staff forum would be a good thing, in my book. At the very least it would let them know what is going on.

[Tabitha]

I honestly did not know this was a thing to begin with, and now that i do, IT kind of upsets me.

[Gollee]

I don't see why non-whitelisted people can't at least see it. OOCly, it affects everyone, not just heads.

[Skull132]

The initial reason for this was to give some space. Namely, if a head of staff player speaks his mind and voices an opinion which goes counter to what people think should happen, there exists some potential for that person to be picked out from the rest.

If the whitelisted players are for this change, then it'll be done, however.

[Jakers457]

I prefer the privacy to be honest. Heads can discuss tactics, policies and share tips without the community getting stuck in.

Things need to be discussed and decided upon then it can be produced to the community. Otherwise it'll be the clusterfuck of arguing and going off topic. No offense, but it happens

[Gollee]

I would prefer everyone to be able to see it; but only whitelisted able to post; that way, no arguing; and non-whitelisted can learn how to head of staff OOCly.

[SgtSammac]

I agree with Jakers, but I don't really mind either way.

[Skull132]

Well, I don't want to make it open for everyone for posting. But as said, I am willing to review view-rights.

[Guest]

Seems everyone is agreeing on view rights for non-whitelisted players, so il put my vote in there aswell.

Its just a place where we go and argue about paperwork, keeping it hidden will only raises tension.

[Chaznoodles]

I feel that everyone should at least be able to see it.

[mrimatool]

Just so people aren't thinking the staff are plotting in secret.. There IS a post about the sub-forum on the general sub-forum here; www.aurorastation.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=963

And Boka I always follow this rule of thumb

Is it you suggesting something? Yes= Suggestion forum No=General forum.

[Tainavaa]

I personally don't believe non-whitelisted players should have view access. I don't really participate in the forum so I imagine my word doesn't have much weight on it but the privacy matters.

People who are non white listed and want to participate but cant I imagine might develop animosity for those they disagree with but can't really voice. One of the few reasons the concept of "need-to-know" exists. It also reinforces the idea of rank-restricted access. Like the attention to heads thread where command staff are informed of the going-ons of certain characters and their employment status. That's pretty nice.

[Guest]

Honestly, what kind of privacy are you people talking about. Why wouldn't rest of the players be able to view the information there? Having a whitelist does not mean you're a special player (other than the whitelist itself) and that your voice is worth more. I think everyone should be able to voice their opinion on regulations and such, if not in the subforum, then raise questions in the General or Suggestions, while quoting from there.

[Tainavaa]

So we shouldn't have a head of staff forum?

I'm not advocating privacy for the purpose of "being a special player" as you're suggesting. I hardly participate in the forum. I already elaborated on the privacy in my last post but being in command is akin to being an officer in the army. They're not special. You pay courtesy and respect to them but what are they? Administrators and managers. Nothing special. Normal people. But they discuss things among other officers that are kept confidential from enlisted. And that's fine.

If everyone sees and has the right to comment, in or out of the subforum, you might as well just take it away. Which is something I can get behind because honestly if that happens, all you're doing is fragmenting discussion and causing unnecessary clutter. People will go back and forth between the forums or just migrate the discussion entirely to another subforum. Why deal with that? Just take away the head of staff forum.

[Valkrae]

It makes sense from an RP-standpoint that it would be restricted to those who actually have the access.

Not everyone would be able to easily hop onto their local military base, and view the classified files laying around there, would they?

[Guest]

So we shouldn't have a head of staff forum?

On second thought, there is private information there, but that raises more questions that it answers. Why is that information even there to begin with? Are whitelisted players more trustworthy than a non-whitelisted one?

Conditions for getting a whitelist are that you're either, a player, person and RP-er of acceptable standard, or have a shitton of friends. They are a good filter for that, true, to some extent, but there are players who have no interest in playing heads of staff but are somehow not priviliged with that information or having a voice in the way station is handled. What it turns into in the end is a cool-kid club.

Should we have a head of staff forum? Yes and no. It should be a place where players interested in a productive discussion can do so without interuption, but, the main reason it works is, imo, because good part of the forumbase is excluded from the discussions by default. Toxic forum users will not lose their whitelist, or get refused one, as far as I'm aware, unless it hampers gameplay.

The 'private' treads can still most likely be locked from viewing anyway, while rest of the players can view paperwork and regulation discussions, then respond accordingly on other subforums as changes are being discussed. If they wish to make a more direct contribution to the discussion, they are welcome to apply for a whitelist.

[Guest]

Personally, it'd be nice if there was a division of the Head of Staff forum, an IC part and an OOC part, IC would be Whitelisted viewing only, OOC would be Whitelisted can post, regs can view.

[Gollee]

Personally, it'd be nice if there was a division of the Head of Staff forum, an IC part and an OOC part, IC would be Whitelisted viewing only, OOC would be Whitelisted can post, regs can view.

 

That could work, as there is no reason at all, really, that an unwhitelisted player shouldn't be allowed to view the OOC stuff, it affects them as well, and can help them on the way to their whitelists.

[Tainavaa]

That's very unnecessary, Bokaza. You're over thinking a simple situation with an arbitrary problem. If people can view but can't respind, but are free to discuss elsewhere on another subforum. Why have it? Yes they can apply for a whitelist to "contribute more directly" but that's playing into something youre against that is, white listed players have a stronger voice. We don't and your proposal only promotes the idea that we do. It makes more sense and is a much simpler solution. Nix it.

Xanderdox's idea I think makes more sense and is an idea that I wouldn't mind being explored but honestly once again why have an OOC portion if that thing I said earlier?

[Guest]

That's very unnecessary, Bokaza. You're over thinking a simple situation with an arbitrary problem. If people can view but can't respind, but are free to discuss elsewhere on another subforum. Why have it? Yes they can apply for a whitelist to "contribute more directly" but that's playing into something youre against that is, white listed players have a stronger voice. We don't and your proposal only promotes the idea that we do. It makes more sense and is a much simpler solution. Nix it.

Xanderdox's idea I think makes more sense and is an idea that I wouldn't mind being explored but honestly once again why have an OOC portion if that thing I said earlier?

 

The OOC section of the thing is for Heads of Staff to have unity, it's less of deciding on regulation and such, and more of discussing our individual play-styles and combining them to create a more stable shift-by-shift department for the crew.

Example: One HoS might not allow any armour on code green, another HoS might.

Goes on Head of Staff forums, discusses both of their personal protocols.

Ends up deciding that they will now have some Officers in armour for responding to violent crimes, and others in just uniform to respond to regular calls.

The reason players don't really have a say is because they're not command, they haven't filled the roles (probably) here on Aurora and they don't have a play-style or their own personal SoP to discuss with the other players.

[Tainavaa]

So why have a head of staff subforum? If freely available to see by anyone, merge it with the general forum. And why not let anyone post if anyone can see? An aspiring captain might want to inquire further or find their method questionable. They can make a post elsewhere. So once again, why have it or why have a posting restriction if not a viewing restriction? It doesn't make sense to remove the view restriction but not the post restriction with both the ideas that everyone's word is equally valuable and command can help people understand what it means to be an "officer" of a research station. In the case that command can help others, then the head of staff forum needs to be relabeled and more accurately/descriptively named. That's changing the purpose of the forum.

Which I don't have a problem with. But with how the head of staff forum is to my understanding, it's hardly a thing that needs to happen. So maybe it should be relabeled and redefined?

[Guest]

That's very unnecessary, Bokaza. You're over thinking a simple situation with an arbitrary problem. If people can view but can't respind, but are free to discuss elsewhere on another subforum. Why have it? Yes they can apply for a whitelist to "contribute more directly" but that's playing into something youre against that is, white listed players have a stronger voice. We don't and your proposal only promotes the idea that we do. It makes more sense and is a much simpler solution. Nix it.

Xanderdox's idea I think makes more sense and is an idea that I wouldn't mind being explored but honestly once again why have an OOC portion if that thing I said earlier?

 

I'm getting mixed signals here. On one side we need to keep classified (IC) hidden, on the other we need to keep OOC hidden. What does even classify something as classified?

From my perspective, it would not look that whitelist players have a stronger voice, only that they are more interested in doing the actual discussing. Honestly, why do you think newcomers scream 'elitism' when they come to the server, because stuff is being discussed and concluded behind their backs. They think staff is out to get them just because they want a quiet place to discuss what to do.

It's same as saying that all discussions in the government should be kept private because people would feel that their voices are somewhat weaker.

[Tainavaa]

But discussions are on a need to know basis in the government and the only things discussed or told to the public are things they deem that the public needs to know. Or PR.

If you're confused as to my stance on this then I'll clarify here.

1. The head of staff forum, as is, should maintain its privacy.

2. If you want to make a simple change with how it is now, to make it an effective addition and not just splitting up discussion between multiple boards then it needs to be rethought or simply, removed. Neither of which I'm against. It needs to be relabeled and redifined, split, merged into another forum, whatever. With a simple change like that it needs to be made clear the intent of the forum. The head of staff forum right now serves multiple purposes. Some of it is just for fun, some if it is more serious and some of it is IC. Which is where XanderDox's idea comes in. But it shouldn't stop there because the OOC thing would still then be redundant and because we still have the issue of fragmenting discussion or otherwise migrating discussion. So it either needs to be split AGAIN or its purpose needs to be redefined. Or both.

Also, not everyone's whitelist will be accepted. So there are people who are interested. Some might be more interested than white listed players. But they can't participate anyway.

[Tainavaa]

Additionally, of course people are coming here and screaming elitism. People get their feelings hurt, they get upset because they can't do what they want. Its going to happen. We will always have people like that, there will always be people like that in the world. Its like that in many organizations, its going to happen. That's not a speculation, there's no "if", its going to happen. No matter what.