· 8 years ago · Apr 16, 2018, 05:36 PM
1## SPOOKY NOTES FROM MEETING ##
2
3- Fuzzy discussion of staff needing to behave correctly to one another. No stated basis for this block. Mostly taken up by discussing personal definitions of professionalism. Conclusion that staff need to be nice to one another. We are already - go team.
4
5- Current senior/head structure for voting into positions and how. Alternatives to current are discussed - General agreement that everything suggested is worse than current, or needless, or both. General agreement that keeping current model is better than any suggested change.
6
7- Complaint system. General chatter about complaints with assertions that people are scared to use them or using them incorrectly in some cases. Drifts to complaint conclusions. General agreement that concluding complaints correctly with documented resolutions is good.
8
9- Vox. MRBC wants vox to be present in every round as a 1/3 chance each of stowaway, merchant, or a vox team of several on a skipjack that can map move and dock. Vox are neutral but can be bought out to do things by the ship or antags. Vox are not allowed to self-antag. Vox whitelist to be culled.
10
11- Dev role in game. Discussion of what devs can/should do in game as staff; what powers and when, etc. Conclusion summarizes as "Devs can do mod stuff if they want to. Devs can fix big bugs if they want to. Devs shouldn't do anything besides those two things unless they ask an admin first."
12
13- Lore arcs. "A story arc is any series of events and story articles, occurring both in and outside the server, and conducted by members of the lore team. Generally these are either planned out in advance, or have planned key events whose outcomes can be determined by community participation inside or outside of the game server. Information about plans for story arcs should be considered confidential, as nobody should have these things spoiled and they're meant to be for the fun of players to participate and read in if they enjoy the backstory of Baystation. All story arcs should be operated under the assumption that they will require general lore approval and stay within the scope of original plans."
14
15- General chatter about devs.
16
17- repo Dev/Species Maintainer conflict resolution. Relatively long discussion - largely "devs should have all power" vs "species maintainers should control their species'". Mostly comes down to focusing on edge cases and worst cases. Working conclusion, to be tweaked up by xales/ftangsteve: "
18- A species maintainer may veto a pull request that affects their species.
19
20- A developer may veto a pull request that affects a species.
21
22- Should a species maintainer and a developer disagree (one wishes to merge, one wishes to veto) for reasons not related to code quality, they must reasonably discuss their disagreement. If they cannot agree through discussion, they must appeal to the head dev and lore senior.
23"
24
25## MEETING LOG FOLLOWS ##
26
27[19:19] ThatOneGuy: Really I just wanna kick it off with how everyone thinks we’re doing
28[19:19] ThatOneGuy: Where are we improving, where are we lacking, what could be done better etc
29[19:21] Commissar_Drew: @ThatOneGuy
30I’ve found that team communication could be improved.
31However, distribution of work, especially on the lore front, has been approached dynamically. Steve approaching prospective personnel to assist was definitely a good mood to spread the work around and get down to brass tacks faster.
32[19:21] Aetsuki: It'd be appreciated
33[19:22] sabira: im present but eating so won't be typing unless i se something i need to respond to
34[19:22] masterrbc: I must agree tenfold with Drew on that.
35[19:22] Endoreon: @Bc, Jikka The Shetberd crunchy sucks
36[19:22] masterrbc: @F-Tang Steve has done a phenominal job in increasing communication throughout the lore side of stuff
37[19:22] masterrbc: ((Crunchy is the best [Also, yes I have a stormtrooper coffee mug]]))
38[19:23] F-Tang Steve: Oh, I've got a spreadsheet of who is offering to help with what too
39[19:24] masterrbc: Also on the topic - I think we still have a ways to go with staff attitudes towards not only other staff, but the community.
40[19:25] masterrbc: I still firmly believe that publicly visible enforcement is the best way to go in order to ensure that an example of precedent is set to show staff, present and future, that it's not okay to come to the community with a poor attitude and not work together. Sure, there's bad days, but not when it's consistent over a month (happening more then three times)
41[19:26] Commissar_Drew: I would concur with BC there. An air of professionalism and general respect would be beneficial to clearing the air of some of the toxicity I’ve seen... that’s endemic b/c, well, internet.
42[19:27] ThatOneGuy: Good, can you send it to my way later? I think you’re generalizing attitudes, while there’s some bad apple sure most of the us vs them attitudes come from trouble members. As well I do not think pushing this place more and more towards being a work place environment will promote anything but burn out.
43[19:28] masterrbc: Like the other night on the server, I made a screw up, but I admitted it and apologized to everyone online because we need to throw away this image that all staff are perfect, we are all at the end of the day human, but we need to be a part of this community in a professional way, as per the rules of being staff.
44[19:28] F-Tang Steve: Well, I have quite a strong opinion about this if I could talk?
45[19:28] Aetsuki: I don't think that the bad attitudes are encouraging people to not burn out either
46[19:28] Commissar_Drew: @F-Tang Steve
47I believe that’s what this time is for â¤ï¸
48[19:30] F-Tang Steve: Well, I like explicit professionalism when I talk and organise stuff. It works well for me and what I need. However, it doesn't work for everyone. Different people have different ways of expressing themselves. When I use a very strict professional tone, it can make people feel like I'm being frigid or pompous. While you should still say professional things, the way that you say it should adapt to who you're talking with.
49[19:31] masterrbc: Just a quick counter point, making this like a workplace isn't what being accountable for your attitude and lack of ability to act professional means. It's quite the opposite, it's called being an adult. (Directed at ToG's prev comment)
50[19:32] ThatOneGuy: And I agree with you BC, but generally when this was brought up in the past, being on the staff became near unbearable because every little mistake was an immediate strike 1/3 for you
51[19:32] Commissar_Drew: @F-Tang Steve
52Certainly.
53Maybe we should define professionalism?
54Such as: discussing things in a mature manner and not flinging insults back and forth?
55[19:32] ThatOneGuy: While “professionalism†is good and important, so is yknow enjoying this place
56[19:32] masterrbc: But what steve said was adapting it to each situation, which is true
57[19:32] ThatOneGuy: Oh for sure
58[19:32] masterrbc: I agree with Drew in what he said
59[19:33] F-Tang Steve: @Drew (LT Bannick) the content you say should be professional, but you don't need to make it super uptight sounding whenever you talk.
60[19:33] Commissar_Drew: Exactly.
61[19:33] F-Tang Steve: (general you)
62[19:33] F-Tang Steve: Using casual language with professional content is often helpful and makes you feel more reasonable and approachable
63[19:33] Commissar_Drew: I’m not saying stuffy business airs. I’m just saying be good to each other. Or, as I said the other day, be radical to each other, dudes.
64[19:34] ThatOneGuy: Casual language for the win tbh
65[19:34] masterrbc: I won't name names because this is the meeting, but we had a pretty big discussion about this, today, last week
66[19:34] ThatOneGuy: I’d have quit like 10 years ago if I couldn’t use it
67[19:34] masterrbc: Because someone has been acting like a dick and I'd pretty much had enough of it, named names of who it is, which sparked a pretty big discussion.
68[19:35] ThatOneGuy: I recall
69[19:35] Commissar_Drew: I’m tracking the intent of the words is the end goal, rather than word choice, as it were.
70[19:35] ThatOneGuy: Yes
71[19:35] masterrbc: Being professional is never a 100% all the time thing, but if you talk about a community member, staff or non-staff, you must give them respect, regardless of who it is.
72[19:36] masterrbc: There are people in the community whom do not like me at all and refuse to talk to me, but I still give them the respect I expect to be treated with.
73[19:36] masterrbc: It's not hard to treat people fairly, it's hard to pull other people back into line when you know they are doing the wrong thing but don't want to seem like their enemy.
74[19:37] ThatOneGuy: (really we should push being an adult and mature with eachother when the time dictates the need)
75[19:38] Commissar_Drew: ^ reasonable.
76Police each other. Make sure your fellow staffers are being radical.
77[19:38] Aetsuki: I feel like all the time during discussions dictates a need
78[19:38] ThatOneGuy: Police eachother has a very bad connotation lol
79[19:39] ThatOneGuy: Aetsuki not every conversation is a heavy duty discussion
80[19:39] Commissar_Drew: (Damn civilian language barriers)
81[19:39] ThatOneGuy: I don’t expect people to treat a convo about which peanut butters better the same asba discussion about a problem player
82[19:39] Aetsuki: Not what I meant
83[19:39] Spookerton: Since we're at 20 minutes on this topic and it seems to be fairly directionless, is there a point to be made besides "Everyone should aim to be nice and calm to one another because it sucks for everyone if we don't" or can we leave it at that now?
84[19:40] ThatOneGuy: Nah I was about to move on
85[19:40] ThatOneGuy: Had just noticed the time
86[19:40] Aetsuki: Short and long of what I'm saying is we seem to be having issues with being adult and mature with the latter discussions
87[19:41] ThatOneGuy: Different opinions, just let someone know if they’re being a dick or immature
88[19:41] Commissar_Drew: Closing comment:
89Just watch out for each other. Try and keep up a mature dialog. Help buddies out if they’re slipping.
90[19:41] ThatOneGuy: ^
91[19:41] ThatOneGuy: So Issues in Staff kind of ran with that topic too
92[19:41] masterrbc: I agree with drew on that
93[19:42] ThatOneGuy: Gonna move onto Restructuring Head/Senior Process
94[19:42] ThatOneGuy: Because currently we’re a political mess when it comes to putting new people up and seniors sometimes aren’t even really seniors just popular people and other things
95[19:45] ThatOneGuy: Basically I think we should redo the system to be more top down in approach, with the Heads being chosen by the host and the seniors being nominated by the Headmin and voted on (as a group not individually) by the team. I do not think the politics of it all has really produced anything good for us and I think all of the positions should be filled based off merit and ability rather than the number of votes you get
96[19:46] masterrbc: That's open to a lot of major sway though and biased appointment
97[19:46] masterrbc: That's my only concern
98[19:46] Aetsuki: ^
99[19:47] ThatOneGuy: Which is why the seniors have to be approved by the team
100[19:47] sabira: wouldn't you rather have a triumvirate team that works well together?
101[19:47] ThatOneGuy: Lolno
102[19:47] ThatOneGuy: We tried that
103[19:47] sabira: @bcc
104[19:47] ThatOneGuy: It failed
105[19:47] ThatOneGuy: Horribly
106[19:47] Spookerton: #notademocracy etc
107[19:47] Aetsuki: What does this leave us if none of the nominations appeal?
108[19:47] CHINSKY: give me ultimate power obv
109[19:48] ThatOneGuy: Leaves you with the right to vote no against the seniors and talk shit to the host about why their head choices suck
110[19:48] Commissar_Drew: If I may:
111Host nominates Head.
112Seniors vote and confirm.
113Head nominates seniors.
114Staff vote to confirm.
115Ye?
116[19:49] CHINSKY: hell no to host being involved in staff politics
117[19:49] masterrbc: There still should be an overall voting process imo, even if the host only nominates the head candidates
118[19:49] CHINSKY: in any capacity
119[19:49] CHINSKY: please don't do this to mloc
120[19:49] Spookerton: That makes very little sense, considering you want the headmin to be voted in by ... what, the *leaving* seniors? lol.
121[19:49] ThatOneGuy: ^
122[19:49] ThatOneGuy: Voting processes are silly IMO
123[19:49] ThatOneGuy: We don’t need votes
124[19:49] ThatOneGuy: We just need a leadership
125[19:49] sabira: its a literal popularity contest
126[19:49] CHINSKY: my leadership
127[19:49] F-Tang Steve: what about when there's a conflict of interest
128[19:50] Eckles_Fire: *remembers bad things about entrenched headstaff*
129[19:50] ThatOneGuy: Do you care to go into that more Steve
130[19:50] mloc: host works well when it's used to break drama
131[19:50] mloc: dunno if it'd work well otherwise
132[19:50] mloc: probably just cause more drama
133[19:50] Snapshot: Just going to say that switching to a top-down election process like that is going to cause a shit-ton more drama than it's worth.
134[19:50] F-Tang Steve: Well, I've been pushing species maintainers to work on the wiki. If the next headmin was a species maintainer and didn't want to get pushed, they may not choose me regardless of how well I do the role.
135[19:51] F-Tang Steve: *for loremaster
136[19:51] Snapshot: If you think the community is upset enough about how things are, wait until they start getting the impression that staff aren't in control of elections anymore.
137[19:51] ParadoxSpace: yeah pls no
138[19:51] sabira: they aren't
139[19:51] sabira: players dont vote
140[19:51] sabira: oh misread
141[19:51] sabira: im dumb
142[19:51] ParadoxSpace: community elected headmins yes
143[19:52] Snapshot: Oh please no
144[19:52] ThatOneGuy: Steve I can say without a doubt that if someone decides not to choose you for that reason then they don’t deserve to ever be headmin
145[19:52] Commissar_Drew: David Starch for headman.
146[19:52] maniacalFowl: David Potato*
147[19:52] Commissar_Drew: Hooah
148[19:52] maniacalFowl: Hooyah
149[19:52] ThatOneGuy: Personally I think we should move away from Elections, maybe the Headmins elected and the seniors are nominated by them
150[19:53] masterrbc: That could work, I think
151[19:53] F-Tang Steve: But there's no way of knowing if that's why they're picking it. It would create a huge conflict of interest. I'd be ok with it if the headmin had to drop all other roles.
152[19:53] mister_fox: @mloc do you have a desire to be involved in server politics from your position as server host
153[19:53] ThatOneGuy: ^
154[19:53] ThatOneGuy: Steve that’s
155[19:53] ThatOneGuy: That’s kinda silly
156[19:53] Aetsuki: I'm with steve here
157[19:53] F-Tang Steve: It would remove the potential conflict of interest
158[19:54] ThatOneGuy: It’d remove way more than that tbh
159[19:54] F-Tang Steve: It would, yes
160[19:54] ThatOneGuy: So
161[19:54] ThatOneGuy: It’s a no from me
162[19:54] mloc: not super involved but I'm willing to step in if things go to shit
163[19:54] sabira: the headmin is already de-facto everything
164[19:54] F-Tang Steve: Which is why I don't like the idea wholesale, but if it's going through, there's no way it can be reasonable without dropping their other roles
165[19:54] sabira: so its not like channging color of tags on forum really means much
166[19:54] Snapshot: I'm sorry but I don't think I could disagree more with the concept of getting rid of senior staff elections.
167[19:54] F-Tang Steve: I agree with snap
168[19:55] ParadoxSpace: agree
169[19:55] ThatOneGuy: And I disagree with you on that. Seniors should not be elected, they should be chosen based off seniority and merit
170[19:55] Snapshot: They exist for the purpose of allowing a change in flow. Yeah it sucks that we do this constantly, but that's the literal purpose of the elections in the first place.
171[19:55] Spookerton: There is no system that will satisfy everyone. What we currently have functions. People in roles experience hiccups and have to go do other things sometimes, or get tired and step down, but I don't see a point in changing it because other options are either worse or contrived. Leave it at that tbh.
172[19:55] ThatOneGuy: Not popularity
173[19:55] Snapshot: I'm sorry but appointments are much more a popularity content
174[19:55] Snapshot: Who can kiss the headmin's ass more?
175[19:55] maniacalFowl: ^
176[19:55] Aetsuki: ^
177[19:55] F-Tang Steve: Except it's popularity with one person
178[19:55] maniacalFowl: Keep elections
179[19:55] ThatOneGuy: Electrons
180[19:55] maniacalFowl: Shhh
181[19:56] ThatOneGuy: And I disagree snap
182[19:56] IDTia: The current system while not perfect in any way is miles better than the alternatives suggested
183[19:56] maniacalFowl: Elections allow people to pu themselves forward for the commitment rather than being nominated for it
184[19:56] Snapshot: Okay, and that's your opinion, but don't be forgetting I'm not the only one with my opinion on this
185[19:56] ParadoxSpace: 'i pick [x] metabuddy to be [position]' is horrible
186[19:56] maniacalFowl: This is all volunteer
187[19:56] ThatOneGuy: And I’m not the only one with mine ☹ï¸
188[19:56] masterrbc: I agree heavily with what Snap said
189[19:57] Aetsuki: Who was for?
190[19:57] ThatOneGuy: The fact that either was elected in the first place PS is a disaster
191[19:57] F-Tang Steve: I also heavily agree with snap
192[19:57] ThatOneGuy: But let’s not forget
193[19:57] sabira: just hold a vote to see if we need to hold any more votes
194[19:58] ThatOneGuy: Fine we’ll stick with our stupid popularity contests 😢
195[19:58] Chronograph: Agreed, Anyways. I agree with spook here. Nothing we do can satisfy everyone and it's a waste of energy to keep trying to think of the 'best solution'
196[19:58] ParadoxSpace: /tg/ style devocracy when
197[19:59] ThatOneGuy: Never
198[19:59] ThatOneGuy: Anyways moving on
199[19:59] xales: Better idea:
200[19:59] ThatOneGuy: Oh?
201[19:59] Chronograph: I do personally agree that voting for headmin and having the headmin pick seniors is kind of a good idea.
202[19:59] xales: everyone is headmin for a day with absolute power everyone else has none
203[19:59] ThatOneGuy: No
204[19:59] xales: changes to a random person by a script each day
205[19:59] xales: :p
206[19:59] mloc: better idea: sortition
207[19:59] Commissar_Drew: Consensus reached? Leave as is?
208[19:59] Snapshot: I'm just going to suffix with this:
209The big reason we're bringing this up is because we're having a constant flow of senior staff going in and out, and usually having to leave due to IRL commitments. The system works exactly as intended as it is now. There are elements of popularity involved and there's no way of avoiding that, but more importantly, the decision is made by a general consensus of staff, which means it doesn't fall on one person to make the decision. If for anything else, it provides CYA for the headmin since they aren't going to be the sole point of failure if a bad decision is on who becomes seniormin.
210[20:00] mloc: .. basically that though
211[20:00] xales: my biggest issue with current system that's not why this was brought up
212[20:00] xales: is with people being afraid to actually do anything because of fear of political backlash
213[20:00] sabira: basically I hold @F-Tang Steve as standard for what a senior can be doing if they devote their resourses to do so
214[20:01] ParadoxSpace: ^
215[20:01] ThatOneGuy: What xales said
216[20:01] xales: like, even our most general leadership position
217[20:01] xales: while TOG has been far from perfect, he still shouldn't have to live under this "do what we want or vonc" crap
218[20:03] Commissar_Drew: “What are they gon’ do, kick me out?â€
219Is jus a game. A game we all love and want to contribute to, but in the end it’s a hobby. Don’t be afraid to voice your opinion to the other people that help maintain the environment.
220
221If they turn on you for it, then maybe the community isn’t the right place. :/
222[20:03] xales: I think a bigger concern is "I don't want to say/do possibly controversial thing because now I'll never get elected and be able to actually do anything around here"
223[20:04] xales: rather than "I don't want to get kicked out"
224[20:04] F-Tang Steve: There's a tendency to elect those who are likely to do the stuff you want vs those who do the job well.
225[20:04] Commissar_Drew: Kick out. Lock down on a position. Potato potato.
226[20:04] xales: or elect someone you know will do nothing because you like the status quo, too
227[20:04] Snapshot: And of course the problem is that is a very nuanced issue.
228[20:05] xales: honestly?
229[20:05] xales: I think we need blind elections
230[20:05] xales: you vote, once
231[20:05] xales: you do not see other votes until it's over
232[20:05] Aetsuki: I'm not sure that would change the issue
233[20:05] ThatOneGuy: Yes
234[20:05] xales: some sort of preferential voting is better than fptp too
235[20:05] masterrbc: I agree with that, it'd help votesway
236[20:05] Aetsuki: I like not seeing the votes
237[20:05] F-Tang Steve: I'd like STV
238[20:05] xales: cc @spookerton voting systems
239[20:05] Spookerton: _froths_
240[20:06] ThatOneGuy: lol we could always do a Borda count system for all 5 head positions
241[20:06] xales: STV would be nice though yes
242[20:06] Spookerton: @xales <https://civs.cs.cornell.edu/>
243[20:06] Spookerton: civs best ok
244[20:07] xales: civitas tho
245[20:07] xales: because who doesn't need crypto voting
246[20:07] xales: :v
247[20:07] ThatOneGuy: :v
248[20:07] ThatOneGuy: Moving on to a related topic sort of
249[20:07] ThatOneGuy: The Complaint System
250[20:08] ThatOneGuy: (Ozwell had something to say on this but is unable to attend the meeting) so does anyone have any current issues with how it works?
251[20:09] ThatOneGuy: I just notice people talk about it like an issue frequently so I figured now would be a good time to bring it up
252[20:09] Spookerton: Not meeee.
253[20:09] masterrbc: I mean...
254[20:09] xales: I hear a lot of "I don't wan to make a complaint because I fear repercussions"
255[20:09] ThatOneGuy: ^
256[20:09] xales: (even though there's less than 0 precedent for that...)
257[20:09] Aetsuki: We've already disproven that there is no precedent for repercussions of speaking out against people.
258[20:09] ThatOneGuy: (There was it’s just an old precedent from a time of horrors)
259[20:09] masterrbc: It's okay, but sometimes complaints are made when it should be something discussed with the staff member, at least for staff complaints; see Huntime's recent complaint
260[20:10] xales: right, well, under current custodianship it doesn't happen
261[20:10] sabira: i think people have some confusion about what a complaint is actually useful for
262[20:10] sabira: re: staff complaints
263[20:10] ThatOneGuy: Aetsuki not...really? I mean I’ve been in leadership for well over 2 years now and it hasn’t been an issue
264[20:11] sabira: people are still opening complaints and then 10 posts later saying "Oh I dont actually want anyone to get in trouble! Close this please"
265[20:11] ThatOneGuy: Yeah
266[20:11] ThatOneGuy: I notice that too
267[20:11] xales: possibly having a rule about discussing staff complaints with senior staff or something to make sure they actually want to go forward would be good?
268[20:11] xales: uninvolved senior anyway
269[20:11] xales: like, not a requirement but a strong suggestion perhaps
270[20:11] masterrbc: I think
271[20:12] Aetsuki: I'm referring to informal complaints, not the complaints forum, my mistake
272[20:13] masterrbc: That to allow there to be a level of welcoming to the topic, they should be free to speak to any admin, because if it's about senior staff, some people instantly think "Oh, Spookerton will tell Crushtoe I want to make a complaint about him" and it's completely unfounded by facts, BUT there are communities like that in SS13 and that's where some people have come from.
273[20:13] xales: I feel like that's sort of moot though
274[20:13] sabira: also I think that if any disciplinaryt action takes place it's important that it's revealed in the thread.
275[20:13] xales: because if you have an admin buddy you'll talk to them regardless, presumably
276[20:13] xales: and if not you'll still assume the same
277[20:14] sabira: now that we don't have strikes and so on, people want to know if something came of their complaint if it was ruled valid
278[20:14] Commissar_Drew: @sabira
279Yep. Show that it was taken seriously.
280[20:14] ThatOneGuy: We generally do that, sometimes there’s not more to do than a slap on the wrist and a talking to
281[20:14] F-Tang Steve: stuff has to be reasonably public or the whole thing feels pointles
282[20:14] sabira: even something like
283[20:15] Snapshot: I mean, precedence was set to explain what happened as a result of the valid complaint within the complaint.
284[20:15] sabira: "X, your complaint against Y was ruled valid, but this is a relatively minor offense so we've told Y to improve or else there will be further repurcussions"
285[20:15] sabira: is better than "This is valid, we've talked to them"
286[20:15] ThatOneGuy: Except not all of it can be. I don’t care if people wanna see the process of investigating x admin, they’ll learn about it at the end. And oh sure sabira I agree
287[20:15] F-Tang Steve: well yeah the process doesn't matter to show
288[20:16] F-Tang Steve: it's the complaint and the resolution
289[20:16] Aetsuki: I'm with Sabiram
290[20:16] ParadoxSpace: yeah
291[20:16] ParadoxSpace: 'we talked to them' doesn't tell the player literally anything
292[20:16] Chronograph: Thumbs up from me
293[20:16] Snapshot: Okay so
294[20:16] Snapshot: I'm going to cite myself for a lack of good representation, buuuut
295[20:16] Chronograph: I still feel we should take that practice into tickets too when we can.
296[20:17] Snapshot: <https://baystation12.net/forums/threads/valid-snapshot-resomi-ipc-maintainer.4456/#post-66526> <https://baystation12.net/forums/threads/snapshot-resomi-ipc-maintainer.5250/#post-76994> Finalized complaint responses like this should be the standard
297[20:17] Snapshot: Even if it's as far as "[x] has received a verbal/written warning about what has happened"
298[20:17] ParadoxSpace: agree
299[20:18] ParadoxSpace: complaint responses like 'we'll talk to them' don't even.. confirm if the person *was* talked to in any meaningful capacity
300[20:18] Snapshot: It also makes it easier for us to keep track of current active complaints since we can just look through the valid prior complaints for a historical record of staff behavior.
301[20:18] F-Tang Steve: that one though, was was said to happen was never followed through on until the second one
302[20:18] ThatOneGuy: The first was more of a warning
303[20:18] F-Tang Steve: And any update to the status should have been followed up with an additional post
304[20:19] Snapshot: which is why I think we should make it policy that complaints aren't finalized until action items have occurred in the case it's positive.
305[20:19] F-Tang Steve: ```
306Okay, Snapshot, since you've had trouble keeping up with the work required by maintaining two species, please make plans to hand at least one of them off to a new maintainer.
307```
308[20:19] Snapshot: EG "don't say it's handled until it's actually been handled"
309[20:19] F-Tang Steve: Yeah, it should have been updated
310[20:19] F-Tang Steve: or yeah that toio
311[20:19] Snapshot: Because yeah I should not have been enabled to continue acting up in that case, because it's what directly led to the second complaint.
312[20:20] F-Tang Steve: sieg should have followed through
313[20:20] Snapshot: (Which I'm comfortable with saying because I realize it's good to own up to mistakes :v)
314[20:20] F-Tang Steve: but we digress
315[20:20] ThatOneGuy: If that’s all
316[20:20] F-Tang Steve: I think we're pretty agreed that we should put up resolutions and communicate with the person who made the complaint yeah?
317[20:21] ThatOneGuy: Yeah
318[20:21] masterrbc: Agreed - We should continue to the next topic
319[20:21] sabira: also a short thing explaining how and why we came to the conclusion
320[20:21] sabira: would be good
321[20:21] ParadoxSpace: agree
322[20:21] ThatOneGuy: If that’s all
323[20:22] ThatOneGuy: @Bc, Jikka The Shetberd still need time or were you just jiving me and don’t have anything to talk aboit
324[20:22] masterrbc: yeah
325[20:22] masterrbc: I do have stuff to talk
326[20:22] sabira: i have a few things to ask too once we're done with other things
327[20:22] ParadoxSpace: jikka was the ultimate jive turkey
328[20:22] ParadoxSpace: but yes continue
329[20:23] masterrbc: Okay, so I've got the podium for a few
330[20:23] masterrbc: Vox.
331[20:23] ThatOneGuy: Gross
332[20:23] mloc: yes I have a thing to say too
333[20:24] masterrbc: We had a huge freaking meeting and discussion yesterday, which went for 4 hours, as we hashed out everything and have been moving forward with getting the species into a state that the lore makes more sense because Welp was a fanatic for making lore and not writing it down, and basically trying to figure a way to make the species more accessible.
334[20:27] Commissar_Drew: *leans forward in chair*
335[20:28] ThatOneGuy: *whistles*
336[20:28] masterrbc: So, we've decide, and I'm bringing it up here, that Vox will have a guaranteed 33/33/33 chance to get one off-station role per round. This can be a merchant, a Skipjack of four - five vox, and Stowaway.
337We've also tossed up a semi-permanent antag option of "Infiltrator" which is an antag-lite variant made up by @F-Tang Steve where they just come aboard, try to steal whatever they can or of interest, then high-tail it out.
338Vox Skipjack are free to go and raid the away sites and give the explorer team stuff to do. They can also do any gimmicks with the crew as they like, ie merchants, or what have you, but will, in no way shape or form short of a Vox being taken prisoner, not be allowed to attack or antagonise the Torch directly.
339[20:28] Snapshot: Ah okay accessible as in 'in round'
340[20:28] Snapshot: I was about to say <:blobsweats:396521772994002955>
341[20:28] masterrbc: yes, in-round, not as crew, as a minor off-station crew
342[20:28] ThatOneGuy: I’m down with all that yeah
343[20:29] ThatOneGuy: >off-station
344[20:29] ThatOneGuy: *heretic*
345[20:29] masterrbc: Also, it even got the "Yeah, that's cool" from @ParadoxSpace, so we are doing something right. /WHEW/
346[20:29] Spookerton: So you want one in three rounds to have a 4~5 team vox antag group? :s
347[20:29] ParadoxSpace: i thought you were gonna bring up NT vox
348[20:29] IRCBridge: **<NanoTrasen_Inc>** Bring back.
349[20:29] ThatOneGuy: no
350[20:29] Snapshot: captured xenobio vox when
351[20:29] sabira: my major concern is that away sites right now are really basically dungeon runs.
352[20:30] sabira: if you show up and there's nothing there
353[20:30] sabira: you've wasted like potentially 1 1/2 hours of prep
354[20:30] masterrbc: With regards to the Skipjack boys, there will be a roleplay guide, where in it stipulates that they just will not attack a military vessel while alone and without backup, unless one of their own has been captured.
355[20:30] masterrbc: NOW.
356[20:30] Snapshot: @sabira I had a thing for that :v
357[20:30] masterrbc: Moving onto the next part of them - Antonkr is going to be coding their ship to be over-map interactable, so it will be able to fly around the system and dock with the torch.
358[20:31] Snapshot: (but it's an entirely different discussion entirely)
359[20:31] masterrbc: I've also given the Skipjack fella's the go ahead to be bought by Mercs, or the Crew. Whoever gets to them first will likely win them over.
360[20:31] Commissar_Drew: *Vox mercenaries.*
361The horror.
362[20:32] masterrbc: The idea for the Skipjack is a gimmick thing, to allow off-ship interactions with the crew, so they can be merchants selling their wares, looters selling their finds, Tradesmen offering their skills, etc etc
363[20:32] Spookerton: Sounds like a mess tbh, but I don't see why it can't be trialled for a while.
364[20:33] masterrbc: Also, the Whitelist is going to be culled bar a few people who've worked closely with myself and the deputies to re-do some of the lore and make it more reasonable.
365[20:33] ThatOneGuy: Sounds food
366[20:33] ThatOneGuy: Good
367[20:33] masterrbc: And it will be heavily enforced against people going rambo against the crew for no reason, unless it's on an exo-planet.
368[20:34] masterrbc: I also aim to do some in-round events in the near future, more to come on that TM
369[20:34] masterrbc: Long story short:
370Vox will be more accessible.
371- New lore additions
372- Off-ship roles
373- More *SKREE*
374[20:35] ThatOneGuy: Awesome
375[20:35] ThatOneGuy: Next @sabira
376[20:35] masterrbc: Less stupidity
377[20:35] ThatOneGuy: Also make a thread in staff or lore if ya want BC
378[20:35] Commissar_Drew: @Bc, Jikka The Shetberd with our playerbase? :,]
379[20:35] sabira: not my part but id really like to see vox less as generic fantasy goblins or whatever
380[20:36] masterrbc: I will be ToG
381[20:36] sabira: my few things: i'd like the staff roster to be up to date-ier since there are people who comment on PRs as if they are lore people and i have no way to confirm
382[20:36] sabira: also im not on it which is a major concern
383[20:37] xales: technically my job to update that I suppose, for a dev, but
384[20:37] ThatOneGuy: Yeah actually sabira we’re firing you
385[20:37] xales: I don't even know where it is or what iteration we're on or if I have permissions on it or whatever
386[20:37] xales: so
387[20:37] sabira: fare well then!!
388[20:37] xales: I actually started working on something last night
389[20:37] mloc: sabira we're promoting you to over-host
390[20:37] xales: that'll replace the roster though, kind of
391[20:38] xales: (really an interface for database admins but eh, no reason it can't be both)
392[20:38] sabira: 2nd thing, i know everyone has done OK so far without them but i would still like some real guidelines
393[20:38] mloc: and by we I mean me
394[20:38] sabira: on what devs are actually supposed to be in-game
395[20:38] sabira: players and myself have conflicting views
396[20:38] ThatOneGuy: You’re just a dev and I know that sounds shitty but there’s not much to it ingame
397[20:38] F-Tang Steve: Weren't they mod+ admin-?
398[20:39] xales: my understanding is that
399[20:39] xales: devs used to be nothing, not even staff, and were mad
400[20:39] xales: got made staff and got current permissions and were allowed to do some stuff in-game
401[20:39] mloc: before that, devs were admins automatically
402[20:39] ThatOneGuy: ^
403[20:39] xales: since then that was walked back to just being able to fix bugs and stuff or if an admin or mod asked
404[20:39] mloc: it's a weird oscillation
405[20:39] Spookerton: Devs are devs. Devs can do mod stuff if they want to - or not. Devs can fix big bugs if there aren't admins around to do it, or they know how and the admins don't. Devs shouldn't do anything besides those two things.
406[20:39] F-Tang Steve: ^
407[20:40] xales: but yeah we're now in an admin-dominated culture where devs are sort of subservient role rather than the other way around as it is on most servers
408[20:40] xales: (and communities)
409[20:40] xales: since the game can't really..exist without the devs, they usually start the communities and run it ad infinitum
410[20:40] Snapshot: Xales is pretty much on it. Devs were annoyed because they felt like they weren't being respected as members of staff, and so what happened was Devs were given admin-lite permissions and allowed to run events and such, but now we've backtracked on it.
411[20:40] xales: but we stopped being that
412[20:40] Snapshot: And devs sort of are just devs again
413[20:40] sabira: in that case i would like to be able to disable ooc :>
414[20:40] mloc: vv it
415[20:40] Spookerton: Get someone to merge your PR :B
416[20:41] Snapshot: Well I mean we're not admins anymore so...
417[20:41] Snapshot: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
418[20:41] ThatOneGuy: Get someone to redo perms
419[20:41] xales: I was going to
420[20:41] xales: still on my list
421[20:41] sabira: i closed the PR since it seemed as though tog wasn't interested which is fine
422[20:41] sabira: i've almost sort of learned to adapt
423[20:42] ThatOneGuy: Just not interested in that sort of approach
424[20:42] xales: I wonder how broken my tabbed chat branch is
425[20:42] xales: do people still want that?
426[20:42] Snapshot: tbh I miss being able to run events as a dev ;-;
427[20:42] ThatOneGuy: If that’s all tho Sabira Snapshot you had something too
428[20:42] xales: @Snapshot rule now is just "ask an admin, any admin, to say it's okay and you can do it"
429[20:42] sabira: goon chat is good or derivatives
430[20:42] sabira: a lot of work
431[20:42] sabira: though
432[20:42] xales: @sabira I had my own derivative of it that wasn't quite as funky
433[20:42] Snapshot: Okay but that's contrary to what other people were literally just saying
434[20:42] sabira: i had a 3rd thing but i can't remember what it is now
435[20:43] sabira: also yeah snapshots thing.
436[20:43] mloc: bring back uristchat
437[20:43] xales: @Snapshot the only change is just
438[20:43] mloc: from luna
439[20:43] xales: you shouldn't be moderating unless asked to
440[20:43] ThatOneGuy: I agree with mloc
441[20:43] xales: but you can use your admin permissions if you get permission or are asked to
442[20:43] Snapshot: I mean you guys did just say
443[20:43] Snapshot: "Devs can do mod stuff if they want to - or not. Devs can fix big bugs if there aren't admins around to do it, or they know how and the admins don't. Devs shouldn't do anything besides those two things."
444[20:43] Snapshot: Which clearly indicates they shouldn't be doing admin things
445[20:43] ThatOneGuy: I think a simple just ask first is good enough
446[20:44] Snapshot: So that's where this confusion is coming from
447[20:44] Snapshot: Because I keep hearing two different things on what we can or cannot do
448[20:44] F-Tang Steve: Devs can't use their powers except to fix bugs.
449[20:44] F-Tang Steve: their game changey power
450[20:44] F-Tang Steve: but they can do mod stuff if they want
451[20:44] Snapshot: Case in point
452[20:44] sabira: that's a few different things
453[20:44] sabira: who is correct
454[20:44] ParadoxSpace: os/fix bugs/evil
455[20:44] IRCBridge: **<NanoTrasen_Inc>** <DiscordBridge-F-Tang Steve> Devs can't use their powers except to evil.
456[20:44] ThatOneGuy: I think whatever xales says is correct
457[20:45] Spookerton: Steve and I have said the same thing, steve just said it backwards, lol
458[20:45] xales: my understanding, from when I was made a dev (hi @Snapshot)
459[20:45] xales: was devs can't moderate unless also moderators
460[20:45] xales: devs can fix bugs on their own
461[20:45] xales: or do anything else an admin may ask for help with
462[20:45] Spookerton: And yes "admin can I" is perfectly reasonable as a lead-in to doing something active with powers.
463[20:45] xales: like "I want 10 boxes of stuff for my event but don't know how to do that fast, help me"
464[20:45] Spookerton: So I will append that to the prior blob
465[20:45] xales: like, devmod exists because dev on its own doesn't imply mod
466[20:45] xales: in terms of duties
467[20:46] Snapshot: Okay, and that makes sense, but I'm just going to point out that Steve is saying something completely contrary, so this should be cleared up
468[20:46] F-Tang Steve: devmod only existed because I asked
469[20:46] xales: chinsky was devmod before though
470[20:46] F-Tang Steve: was he?
471[20:46] xales: yep
472[20:46] Snapshot: yep
473[20:46] F-Tang Steve: devmin was a thing
474[20:46] ThatOneGuy: Yes
475[20:46] F-Tang Steve: TIL
476[20:46] Spookerton: Ye devmod and devmin are ancient ranks
477[20:46] mloc: chinsky was an OG mod
478[20:46] Spookerton: Anyway here @xales
479[20:46] ThatOneGuy: Like one of the very firsts
480[20:46] xales: yeah he was literally the first mod wasn't he?
481[20:46] Spookerton: "Devs can do mod stuff *if they want to*. Devs can fix big bugs if there aren't admins around to do it, or they know how and the admins don't. Devs shouldn't do anything besides those two things unless they ask an admin first."
482[20:46] ThatOneGuy: Nah Asan was...
483[20:46] Spookerton: How's that as a summary.
484[20:46] Snapshot: I think I was the second devmod :v
485[20:47] F-Tang Steve: I dig it
486[20:47] ThatOneGuy: Yea
487[20:47] xales: @spookerton my only issue is with "if there aren't admins around" - implies lack of agency
488[20:47] xales: I'm fine with devs fixing bugs on their own
489[20:47] sabira: i'd prefer that I investigate a bug first because I have the potential to go on and fix it
490[20:47] sabira: if i can
491[20:47] F-Tang Steve: "Devs can do mod stuff if they want to. Devs can fix big bugs if they want to. Devs shouldn't do anything besides those two things unless they ask an admin first."
492[20:47] Spookerton: ^
493[20:47] ThatOneGuy: Yeah
494[20:47] sabira: radical freedom
495[20:47] Spookerton: fine good we do
496[20:47] ThatOneGuy: Sounds good to me
497[20:47] Snapshot: Obviously we just need dev anarchy
498[20:48] ThatOneGuy: Dev libertarianism
499[20:48] xales: I mean you joke but
500[20:48] xales: that's literally how it is in most other places
501[20:48] xales: :v
502[20:48] F-Tang Steve: that work @xales ?
503[20:48] xales: sure
504[20:48] Snapshot: Oh I know @xales :v
505[20:48] F-Tang Steve: ok cool
506[20:48] ThatOneGuy: Next
507[20:48] ThatOneGuy: Snap your announcement
508[20:48] Snapshot: hoho hey I get to say something cool
509[20:48] Spookerton: @xales to be fair other places have a tendency to violently catch fire and burn down every 18 months or so
510[20:48] ThatOneGuy: nothing u say is cool
511[20:49] xales: @spookerton oh i don't mean other bs12
512[20:49] xales: but other game communities
513[20:49] mloc: we just smoulder on the inside
514[20:49] xales: er
515[20:49] Snapshot: @ThatOneGuy I'll deadmin you
516[20:49] xales: ss13
517[20:49] Spookerton: Me too
518[20:49] ThatOneGuy: Bitch F I T E M E
519[20:49] xales: but like
520[20:49] xales: real games not
521[20:49] xales: open source random-dude-server
522[20:49] Snapshot: Okay but seriously
523[20:49] xales: communities to a specific game that the devs make sort of thing
524[20:49] ThatOneGuy: yes
525[20:49] sabira: ALSO can we get an updated config please
526[20:49] xales: anyway
527[20:49] sabira: the text file
528[20:49] sabira: that was my 3rd thing
529[20:49] mloc: updated in what sense
530[20:49] xales: it's not divergent from the one on github
531[20:49] xales: afaik
532[20:50] xales: oh maybe round types are
533[20:50] mloc: it was anyway
534[20:50] xales: but like, the only divergent stuff is stuff I'm not giving out publicly
535[20:50] xales: (like comms password)
536[20:50] Snapshot: So quick announcement I'm making: I'm sure a lot of you have heard about the various different story arcs and stuff that have been happening lately with Bogani, IPCs, Mirania, and such.
537[20:51] Snapshot: One of the things that came up was there's a lot of different things people are trying to do all at the same time, and as we've had people come and go from positions of responsibility, it's been very easy to lose track of various different lore projects and make sure they're all tied together.
538[20:51] Snapshot: So a few weeks ago the various lore people made a story arc index which we're tracking in the lore maintainer forum. Stuff is still getting worked out in terms of how they're going to be handled, but all of this stuff is going to hopefully start getting posted up there so people can more easily follow.
539[20:51] xales: ^ on this note I can't even tell what's going on with different lore stuff easily
540[20:52] xales: so I think this is good
541[20:52] Snapshot: The idea behind this is if people are trying to tell a story through current events, we can work together to make sure it ties into a greater narrative.
542[20:52] Snapshot: For those with access, it can be found here: https://baystation12.net/forums/threads/story-arc-index.6292/
543[20:52] Snapshot: I'll just verbatim copy the header here
544[20:53] Snapshot: ```A story arc is any series of events and story articles, occurring both in and outside the server, and conducted by members of the lore team. Generally these are either planned out in advance, or have planned key events whose outcomes can be determined by community participation inside or outside of the game server. Information about plans for story arcs should be considered confidential, as nobody should have these things spoiled and they're meant to be for the fun of players to participate and read in if they enjoy the backstory of Baystation. All story arcs should be operated under the assumption that they will require general lore approval and stay within the scope of original plans.```
545[20:53] F-Tang Steve: I'm also hoping @Snapshot that I could work with you on a more visual tracker too. I got a copy of Visio that could help organise some of this stuff visually.
546[20:53] Snapshot: Oh yeah sure
547[20:54] Snapshot: Big thing though is just letting you all know this is a thing, and we'll probably bring more people on board at some point. For now though, if you are ever talked about stuff that is part of a story arc, please operate under the assumption that anything you're told is confidential.
548[20:54] Snapshot: Because we're trying to tell a story over time, and spoiling stuff will ruin the fun of players.
549[20:54] xales: we still have a trello group
550[20:54] xales: could maybe use that too
551[20:54] xales: or something
552[20:55] sabira: also have github projects for public stuff
553[20:55] Snapshot: As of now we really don't need to be expanding off of the lore forum since the idea for story arc threads is basically stating what you plan on doing, what the possible outcomes are, and getting approval/ updates as the story arc develops.
554[20:55] Snapshot: Again this is all pretty preliminary so you'll probably hear more details as we flesh stuff out
555[20:56] Snapshot: But that's basically my announcement.
556[20:56] Snapshot: \o/
557[20:56] F-Tang Steve: ðŸ‘
558[20:56] Snapshot: Also I'll have the first few story arc threads written out to give a template later today
559[20:56] ThatOneGuy: Ight
560[20:56] ThatOneGuy: Well
561[20:57] ThatOneGuy: That’s all folks
562[20:57] ThatOneGuy: We clocked in just under two hours
563[20:57] mloc: wow you missed me
564[20:57] Snapshot: Hey that's 0.5 Snapshot staff meetings
565[20:57] ThatOneGuy: I’m kidding
566[20:57] sabira: i think mloc and xales have things to say too
567[20:57] mloc: :'(
568[20:57] mloc: just for that I'll drag it out another 2 hours
569[20:57] Snapshot: Anyone remember that one 5 hour staff meeting I had?
570[20:57] F-Tang Steve: yeah can they go next?
571[20:58] ParadoxSpace: yeah smh
572[20:58] ThatOneGuy: I luv u mloc
573[20:58] mloc: I just wanted to quickly say that yes, server migration is happening
574[20:58] mloc: just slowly
575[20:58] mloc: my washing machine killed itself
576[20:58] mloc: but we're exploring options
577[20:59] ThatOneGuy: But yeah it’s your turn
578[20:59] mloc: ok I'm done, unless people have questions about the migration or anything
579[20:59] mloc: :p
580[20:59] Spookerton: @mloc <https://www.hetzner.com/dedicated-rootserver/ex41-ssd> when
581[20:59] ThatOneGuy: ETA?
582[20:59] mloc: that's on the table
583[20:59] mloc: unknown
584[20:59] ThatOneGuy: gay
585[20:59] mloc: probably within a month
586[20:59] ThatOneGuy: oh ok
587[20:59] mloc: assuming nothing goes badly
588[21:00] ThatOneGuy: Right
589[21:00] ThatOneGuy: Like you dying
590[21:00] ThatOneGuy: or somethinf
591[21:00] mloc: or my dishwasher dying
592[21:00] ThatOneGuy: Yeah
593[21:00] mloc: anyway yeah, that's all!
594[21:00] ThatOneGuy: Thanks Dad @xales ???
595[21:01] xales: so this is sort of a dual thing
596[21:01] xales: it's come up a few times about where responsibility lies for certain things, and while it's generally not an issue, people get salty and make a fuss and we don't really have any codified standards for how to handle stuff
597[21:02] xales: the first is on issues of gameplay and balance - while the subforum I made and all of that is set up to try to gauge public opinion of stuff, there's a lot of "how can we trust devs to make such important decisions" and stuff like that
598[21:02] xales: or "you came to a conclusion that's not the thing I like and this is unacceptable"
599[21:03] xales: the point of that subforum is to try and remove individual developers from facing backlash, and while it's been mostly effective
600[21:03] xales: as it stands the actual balance/changes/everything ultimately falls to developers, and again - usually fine, but we also don't really have anything to tell people who don't like the judgements we make other than "pound sand, most people disagree with you"
601[21:04] xales: which isn't the nicest but it is reality
602[21:04] ThatOneGuy: Which is dumb
603[21:04] xales: so I'm wondering if anyone has any...alternative to this, or better ways to handle it
604[21:04] Spookerton: Sure there is
605[21:04] Spookerton: Make a before and after release for every contentious feature change
606[21:05] Spookerton: That makes it *easy* for them to pound sand
607[21:05] Snapshot: Can I just ask. Is anyone else sort of getting an impression that there's a general erosion of trust for developers?
608[21:05] ThatOneGuy: People don’t like developers that don’t merge things they like
609[21:05] xales: ^developers^everyone
610[21:05] ThatOneGuy: (Even if said thing is something I would fiat to death if it wouldn’t piss off more people)
611[21:06] F-Tang Steve: I think that a few people have been loud about not wanting devs to make decisions, but to rely on strict community vote. I don't think it represents an overall view though.
612[21:06] ThatOneGuy: ^
613[21:06] sabira: again this is where our lack of real guidelines is failing us
614[21:06] Spookerton: We've already well established that the forum represents a small and usually deeply skewed point of view
615[21:06] ThatOneGuy: And also that’s a dumb as hell opinion cause we’re not a democracy where mob rules
616[21:06] xales: I think that sort of stems from this idea that they'll be able to get what they want that way by making uninvolved people vote their way, too
617[21:06] xales: I have to say
618[21:06] xales: when it comes up and people demand votes
619[21:06] xales: it really feels like that's the motivation
620[21:06] Spookerton: If you want polls to guide anything they must be game polls
621[21:07] ThatOneGuy: (I’m sol glad I deleted forum polls)
622[21:07] F-Tang Steve: I don't want polls
623[21:07] F-Tang Steve: There are a lot more factors than strict community opinion that need to be taken into account
624[21:07] F-Tang Steve: And polls make it feel like a binding vot
625[21:07] xales: ^ also that
626[21:07] Spookerton: mm
627[21:07] F-Tang Steve: I'd be ok with polls if they were private so that they couldn't be used as anything more than an ability to gather general opinion
628[21:08] Spookerton: Then make it clear that the devs choose what happens and the ability for people to discuss what is happening is for there to be discussion, not for them to decide the outcome.
629[21:08] Snapshot: It just feels like the only thing we can really do is reinforce the role developers have in maintaining and ensuring gameplay balance.
630[21:08] F-Tang Steve: I agree
631[21:08] F-Tang Steve: we balance each other out too
632[21:08] F-Tang Steve: there has always been a level of trust with devs
633[21:08] sabira: i don't think we have any problems with cliquish behaviour personally
634[21:08] sabira: but then again I wouldn't, I guess.
635[21:08] Snapshot: At the end of the day, devs are selected because we trust that they know what's best for the game and will take in consideration as to what's fun and will benefit the server.
636[21:09] sabira: chinsky and I have been honest with steve regarding the ligh changes the past few days for example
637[21:09] mloc: devs are a pretty great team rn
638[21:09] ThatOneGuy: Agreed
639[21:09] Snapshot: Except for Mloc
640[21:09] Snapshot: that guy sucks
641[21:09] mloc: yeah
642[21:09] mloc: can we get rid of him
643[21:09] Snapshot: And Snapshot
644[21:09] Snapshot: he doesn't even fucking do anything
645[21:09] xales: I was legitimately
646[21:09] mloc: put him in some unimportant higher management position or something
647[21:09] xales: asked a couple weeks ago
648[21:09] xales: to kick mloc out
649[21:09] ThatOneGuy: lol
650[21:09] xales: I was like
651[21:09] F-Tang Steve: And I just put up a PR fixing it based on their input
652[21:09] Endoreon: why lol
653[21:09] xales: "you don't know things"
654[21:09] xales: "don't pretend"
655[21:09] Endoreon: mloc has
656[21:10] Endoreon: literally done nothing wrong
657[21:10] F-Tang Steve: We all work together
658[21:10] Endoreon: why
659[21:10] xales: I don't want to name names
660[21:10] xales: but it was one of the activity crusader people
661[21:10] Snapshot: Was it me
662[21:10] mloc: I think the problem is I did nothing
663[21:10] Snapshot: did I do it?
664[21:10] ThatOneGuy: it was me
665[21:10] Endoreon: I'd rather have nothing done than bad things happen haha am I right
666[21:10] Spookerton: The majority of the devs have been around for like three times as long as most of our population has even had a byond account - long term engagement as core contributing staff frankly just means more of a say.
667[21:10] Endoreon: 👀 @ThatOneGuy
668[21:10] sabira: whatever the result is I want it posted someowhere publicly we can point to
669[21:10] Snapshot: I'll be straight up honest. I don't get people who do this whole activity crusade on developers.
670[21:11] Spookerton: Well to be fair there's not people, there's person.
671[21:11] xales: I mean
672[21:11] xales: it...yeah
673[21:11] Snapshot: At times development can be more intensive than most other staff roles, and burning bridges with the people who literally make your server work seems like a stupid idea.
674[21:11] mloc: are we still logging this
675[21:11] sabira: its not like having superfluous devs is bad
676[21:11] sabira: worst case scenario it's another brain in codershuttle to potentially answer a question
677[21:11] ThatOneGuy: Whatcha mean mloc
678[21:11] Endoreon: @Snapshot Never got that mentality either.
679[21:12] mloc: do we have public logs of every staff meeting or
680[21:12] Endoreon: These people literally MAKE your game function why be dicks to them.
681[21:12] ThatOneGuy: We do but we can always cut things
682[21:12] xales: when someone remembers to post them yeah
683[21:12] mloc: heh
684[21:12] ThatOneGuy: >.>
685[21:12] Snapshot: ToG's gotta cut that line
686[21:12] Snapshot: and this one
687[21:12] ThatOneGuy: STOP
688[21:12] Snapshot: Oh shit guys it won't stop
689[21:12] mloc: it's not censorship, it's streamlining the reading experience
690[21:12] mloc: ok I'll stop
691[21:12] ThatOneGuy: lol
692[21:12] Spookerton: Cutting things is potatno
693[21:13] Snapshot: I mean to be fair
694[21:13] ThatOneGuy: But if you want to say things that shouldn’t be seen it’s fine *to me*
695[21:13] Snapshot: It's pretty much public record that we cut things that should be kept private
696[21:13] sabira: if we really wanted to be transparent this channel would be publicly viewable
697[21:13] sabira: but moderated so only staff roels can post
698[21:13] Snapshot: for example: individual player discussion or sensitive information.
699[21:13] xales: ^ I've thought about that but
700[21:13] xales: people would just yell at us in PMs for whatever we're actively saying
701[21:13] sabira: lol
702[21:13] Endoreon: do what I do
703[21:13] Endoreon: ignore PMs
704[21:13] Endoreon: duh
705[21:13] Spookerton: don't say 🤠what you ☠don't mean <:meowstop:406901726101372939>
706[21:13] xales: I'd rather have an open conversation than have people trying to suppress opinions
707[21:13] mloc: heh
708[21:13] Endoreon: jk don't do that
709[21:14] Snapshot: Obviously every staff meeting should just be a town hall
710[21:14] Snapshot: nothing could go wrong with that /s
711[21:14] mloc: but anyway my view on devs is that it needs to be opinionated, feedback is good but you need to get shit done
712[21:14] mloc: not advocating for a BDFL but.. not not advocating for one either
713[21:14] ThatOneGuy: BDFL?
714[21:14] sabira: we can just choose not to review things we don't want
715[21:14] sabira: that's a de-facto veto
716[21:15] sabira: why not make it real
717[21:15] mloc: this is a controversial opinion. I can say these things because I'm not a headdev anymore
718[21:15] Endoreon: POTUS has that power.
719[21:15] xales: imo devs already can veto stuff
720[21:15] Endoreon: A pocket veto.
721[21:15] mloc: benevolent dictator for life
722[21:15] sabira: is my view, anyway
723[21:15] ThatOneGuy: Ah
724[21:15] sabira: if we can people seem to think otherwise
725[21:15] xales: eh
726[21:15] ThatOneGuy: I mean
727[21:15] xales: I'd say that again
728[21:15] xales: person thinks otherwise
729[21:15] xales: :v
730[21:15] sabira: yeah but it's like
731[21:15] Snapshot: My final opinion is one that I'll reiterate from somewhere else.
732[21:15] sabira: if I say 'well I can do what I please'
733[21:15] sabira: they say 'says who' and i have nothing to point to
734[21:16] sabira: no rules no thread or anything
735[21:16] sabira: other than 'says me'
736[21:16] xales: I mean, that can be inferred from the role summary thing but
737[21:16] mloc: says mom
738[21:16] xales: yeah
739[21:16] xales: lol
740[21:16] Snapshot: I don't really hold community input to high value as a dev. It takes secondary preference to code review and my own/other developers opinions about what's being discussed. Myself and other developers have been here for years, and that system's worked since basically as long as Bay has been around. If it didn't work, we wouldn't be here having this discussion right now.
741[21:16] mloc: we need a staff mom
742[21:16] sabira: i guess I just prefer to have things written down that I can refer people to
743[21:17] sabira: when these things come up
744[21:17] xales: I don't disagree, but
745[21:17] sabira: to head off any potential issues
746[21:17] xales: if people are sassing you to the point of not just taking your word and trying to be combative
747[21:17] xales: they probably won't listen to you with a thread in hand either
748[21:17] sabira: it hasnt happened very much recently, thankfully
749[21:17] sabira: there havent been many contentious PRs as of late
750[21:17] sabira: things are pretty cut and dry
751[21:17] Snapshot: @mloc it's called the staff maintainer seniormin
752[21:17] mloc: heh
753[21:18] Snapshot: aka @spookerton
754[21:18] ThatOneGuy: Tbh sabira if someone’s being that way you can always ping other devs or xales or mloc or even me
755[21:18] sabira: it's not so much people being combative but like
756[21:18] mloc: well I have no power right now
757[21:18] mloc: but yes
758[21:18] Spookerton: _glorf_
759[21:18] sabira: i think it's reasonable to say to a dev or admin or whatever that you THINK is overstepping bounds
760[21:18] sabira: 'says who'
761[21:18] ThatOneGuy: no I’m no dev but my word is *law* so I can just say they’re a nerd and bam it’s now rule 18.a
762[21:19] Snapshot: Just reiterate somewhere that devs have final say
763[21:19] sabira: especially when there really arent things to call back to, it's not them being a jerk it's just htem not knowing staff boundaries
764[21:19] Snapshot: and all the stuff I said earlier.
765[21:19] ThatOneGuy: ^
766[21:19] sabira: if someone is a jerk to me I don't mind telling them that my name is green
767[21:19] xales: so hm
768[21:20] xales: since devs are a bit more of a nebulous role, and there's a bunch of threads about in-game stuff but not really any threads about dev stuff
769[21:20] Snapshot: - reinforce the role developers have in maintaining and ensuring gameplay balance.
770- at the end of the day, devs are selected because we trust that they know what's best for the game and will take in consideration as to what's fun and will benefit the server.
771- devs have final say when it comes to code and gameplay considerations
772[21:20] Snapshot: boom those 3 things
773[21:20] xales: @spookerton do you want to work with me on putting together a sticky for that subforum, I forget the name, with all of the policy threads and whatever, that outlines the dev role including the stuff we talked about earlier?
774[21:20] sabira: codify the status quo basically
775[21:21] sabira: and empathize that it IS the status quo
776[21:21] mloc: this might be my fault
777[21:21] Spookerton: @xales 'kay
778[21:21] Snapshot: Thanks mloc
779[21:21] mloc: I was very resistant to regulating devs during my run
780[21:21] Spookerton: @mloc you did this to us
781[21:21] mloc: and sorta tried to keep them as separate from administration as possible
782[21:21] mloc: yes :(
783[21:21] mloc: I just wanted to protect my babies from the drama
784[21:21] F-Tang Steve: I mean, I like the dev level of freedom
785[21:21] F-Tang Steve: And people like psi who just want to stay apart from it all
786[21:21] xales: yeah, I don't want to infringe on freedom or anything, but now that people have brought the drama to the devs despite everything
787[21:22] ThatOneGuy: Time to burn them oit
788[21:22] mloc: yeah
789[21:22] ThatOneGuy: Out
790[21:22] F-Tang Steve: so tell them to go away
791[21:22] xales: having an outline for the people who need one to understand how stuff works might not be a bad idea
792[21:22] ThatOneGuy: With fire
793[21:22] sabira: i don't want regulation, per se, people are sort of confused about what happens and they should know what we're able to/expected to do
794[21:22] ThatOneGuy: And pitchforks
795[21:22] F-Tang Steve: and say "devs can do this or more"
796[21:22] sabira: if that makes sense
797[21:22] mloc: it's moved from staff giving drama to devs to the players doing it
798[21:22] Snapshot: It's not really regulation. We just need people to know what exactly a dev can do
799[21:22] F-Tang Steve: staff give drama to devs too on occasion
800[21:22] Spookerton: Mm. Anyway are we done, this seems to be just free chatter on a loose topic now.
801[21:22] Snapshot: Don't say how devs do what they do, just what they _can_ do
802[21:22] mloc: it used to be a lot worse
803[21:22] xales: I have a brief other thing connected to this
804[21:22] Spookerton: :o
805[21:22] F-Tang Steve: as soon as something goes in people don't like it's all *ugh, who merged* ***that?***
806[21:23] Snapshot: Well, more than one dev
807[21:23] ThatOneGuy: Yeah we’re done
808[21:23] xales: I feel like this is entirely resolved but there's been some other drama with devs and staff re: species maintainers not liking PRs touching code that affects their species
809[21:23] Spookerton: @ThatOneGuy
810[21:23] Snapshot: At least one other had to approve it :v
811[21:23] Spookerton: no
812[21:23] ThatOneGuy: yes
813[21:23] xales: I think @F-Tang Steve and I resolved it fine but just want to bring it up in case anyone has anything else to say on it
814[21:23] Spookerton: no xales has another thing
815[21:23] ThatOneGuy: Oh
816[21:23] Snapshot: Yeah I want to hear Xales out on this one
817[21:23] F-Tang Steve: Yeah we resolved it but other opinions are welcome
818[21:23] Snapshot: this sort of coincides with "Devs know what's best for gameplay"
819[21:23] ThatOneGuy: I don’t give a fuck if code touches my species
820[21:24] Spookerton: @xales species maintainers get right of denial on anything that touches their species
821[21:24] Spookerton: AFAIK
822[21:24] Spookerton: Because
823[21:24] Spookerton: It's theirs.
824[21:24] Snapshot: I um
825[21:24] F-Tang Steve: but there's a level to it too
826[21:24] sabira: but it isn't
827[21:24] Snapshot: respectfully disagree :|
828[21:24] xales: The resolution we came to is that devs can't make species not compliant with their lore or otherwise add things that are nonsensical for the species
829[21:24] F-Tang Steve: I couldn't just give GAS like 1000 health and fire immunity
830[21:24] xales: but if say, a gun is added that sets fire to stuff
831[21:24] xales: and a feature is added that it sets Vox on fire too or something because whatever
832[21:24] ThatOneGuy: Species maintainers should only get a day if the code directly affects their species in a way that changes gameplay tbh
833[21:25] xales: if it makes sense physically, species maintainer can't be like "lol but my species I don't want that"
834[21:25] F-Tang Steve: Not that changes gameplay, that changes *lore*
835[21:25] sabira: a say, or a veto?
836[21:25] Snapshot: Big difference ^
837[21:25] ThatOneGuy: Oh yeah whoops
838[21:25] F-Tang Steve: if code changes their *lore* they get veto
839[21:25] Spookerton: @F-Tang Steve of course. Devs can say no to a species thing too. They just shouldn't be able to say yes to something the maintainer says no to unless it's something that needs to be done for like, sanity/code maintenance/technical reasons.
840[21:25] ThatOneGuy: Well no
841[21:25] ThatOneGuy: If the gameplay is changed the lore is too
842[21:25] F-Tang Steve: not always
843[21:25] mloc: what about balance @spookerton?
844[21:25] ThatOneGuy: Sure but if you’re redoing their organs that’s a change they need to know
845[21:25] mloc: I'm still a believer that the lore should follow gameplay not the other way around
846[21:26] Snapshot: That's what came up with this lighting change
847[21:26] ThatOneGuy: If you’re redoing inhand Sprites then nah
848[21:26] xales: @ThatOneGuy that would obviously be something that impacts lore and is something that's up to them
849[21:26] F-Tang Steve: redoing their organs is a part of their lore
850[21:26] sabira: could species X guy right now wanted to make their species 50feet tall and therefore essentially immune to brute damage
851[21:26] xales: (like that PR from mka for unathi, would be maintainer's decision not devs)
852[21:26] Snapshot: Because we added species based dark vision someone thought that it would make gameplay sense to add a feature where a species would have light sensitivity.
853[21:26] ThatOneGuy: Yes but this lighting one is loke
854[21:26] ThatOneGuy: Not
855[21:26] F-Tang Steve: saying "your eyes are better at taking in light so loads of light is more effective" is applying something to their current lore
856[21:27] F-Tang Steve: especially if it's done across all of them at once
857[21:27] Spookerton: @mloc If a species is so unbalanced that changing it to fix that is a necessity, then it's something I'm sure the maintainer and devs can work out between them - and largely, I would think, only applies to completely new species in their settling in period, or following a major subsystem change that necessitates many other changes *including* the species change.
858[21:27] mloc: yeah
859[21:27] sabira: it should be said in the light example the problem was not the content, but the way it was delivered
860[21:27] mloc: I still feel the devs should have the final say though
861[21:27] sabira: which was fully resolved as far as im aware
862[21:27] mloc: but I'm 100% biased
863[21:27] mloc: I get your point
864[21:28] F-Tang Steve: Anyway, loremaster can still override if needed.
865[21:28] Snapshot: IMO devs should have freedom to change species code for gameplay and balancing considerations, and if a species maintainer doesn't like those changes they can make their own PR and argument for it.
866[21:28] F-Tang Steve: Or talk to the species maintainers about it
867[21:28] Spookerton: In general though some rando going "I want unathers to have a verb that makes them leap" or something - ignoring balance of leaping - the species maintainer should be the one who goes "No sorry, unagis don't leap, this is not compliant."
868[21:28] sabira: it's a weird double veto situation where a dev can say 'no this is bad for the game for X reason' and the species guy can say 'well the wiki I edited says this is how it is'
869[21:29] xales: ultimately I think that the track record on this is good, developers can and have used judgement appropriately to loop in species maintainers when necessary
870[21:29] F-Tang Steve: if a maintainer is being unreasonable about balance and a dick, they should be removed @sabira
871[21:29] Spookerton: ^
872[21:29] ThatOneGuy: ^^^^^
873[21:29] F-Tang Steve: that's a problem with the person in the role
874[21:29] Spookerton: You can't really determine normal policy by pointing at edge cases, yeah.
875[21:29] sabira: but what if it is, ultimately a reasonable thing
876[21:29] sabira: like if there were a species of sentient ravens they should be able to fly
877[21:29] F-Tang Steve: GAS can fly
878[21:29] sabira: but in our example that is a major balance concern
879[21:30] F-Tang Steve: it hasn't caused any big issues
880[21:30] sabira: this is just in our example here
881[21:30] ThatOneGuy: ...i don’t know why we’d have sentient Ravens...
882[21:30] ThatOneGuy: But I get your point ish
883[21:30] ThatOneGuy: Still an edge case imo
884[21:30] F-Tang Steve: then we work to find a way to balance it
885[21:30] F-Tang Steve: maybe they can only fly for X seconds or N z levels high
886[21:30] xales: in the unlikely event that a species is introduced and too unbalanced to play for a time
887[21:31] xales: they can always be temporarily disabled or everyone with whitelist have it removed
888[21:31] F-Tang Steve: it's like with GAS and the cloaking
889[21:31] Snapshot: Yeah but what if the species maintainer vetos that since they want their species to play?
890[21:31] F-Tang Steve: Should they lorewise be able to move while cloaked? Sure. Is that a balance issue? Fuck yeah
891[21:31] Spookerton: @xales I think the most reasonable approach here is to say something like, Both species maintainers *and* devs have the right to veto a species-related PR. When they disagree (IE, one wants to merge, one wants to not merge), they have to discuss / have third opinion / shovel it at the headdev & loremin / <etc>
892[21:31] xales: @Snapshot species participation in-game is ultimately a dev decision, they can exist in lore and not playably :p
893[21:31] xales: obviously picking fights is bad but
894[21:31] Snapshot: I mean, that just opened a can of worms relating to who gets the authority on species code
895[21:31] xales: if it's so broken that devs feel the need to disable player use for a time
896[21:31] xales: and the maintainer's not on board there
897[21:31] xales: _something_ is wrong
898[21:32] F-Tang Steve: I mean, right now it's easy snap since our loremaster is a dev
899[21:32] Snapshot: What if the maintainer's not on board because they see a fix coming very soon, and they think it can still be around for the time being?
900[21:32] Snapshot: I mean this is whataboutism and I should stop
901[21:32] Snapshot: but we're back to that whole double veto thing
902[21:32] F-Tang Steve: at that point it's up to the head dev
903[21:32] xales: @spookerton my only issue with codifying it as such is that "species-related" is ambiguous, adding a gun could be "species related" because unathi can pick it up or whatever
904[21:32] F-Tang Steve: and the loremaster
905[21:33] xales: obviously that's a ridiculous claim but that's the stuff that happens here
906[21:33] Spookerton: @xales Directly species related is fairly obvious imo
907[21:33] F-Tang Steve: I think we can trust our species maintainers
908[21:33] F-Tang Steve: And if they can't be trusted to be reasonable, why are they maintaining the species
909[21:33] sabira: i just had this brought up because it's like a razor sharp edge between "devs have uncontested say over everything" and "devs have uncontested control over everything except species/station.dm"
910[21:33] Snapshot: Dunno what you're talking about Steve I don't trust @ParadoxSpace with a 10 foot pole
911[21:33] ParadoxSpace: me neither
912[21:33] F-Tang Steve: Yeah fuck that guy
913[21:33] Snapshot: That's why I keep my friends close, and my enemies closer.
914[21:33] ParadoxSpace: that's why i keep steve in my pocket
915[21:34] sabira: i dont think its a major issue, maybe i have a fetish for having rules and regulations codified
916[21:34] sabira: it would just solve some problems before they begin if everyone knows the score
917[21:34] sabira: from the beginning
918[21:34] Snapshot: I have a fetish for asserting my authority over approximately 1.5k lines of species code
919[21:34] Snapshot: And I think I just found my new forum signature
920[21:34] F-Tang Steve: me_irl http://whatdidyoubringme.homestead.com/files/Tshirts/Herp/reptile/images_mtn/SnakePocket2050.jpg
921[21:34] sabira: basically I want a billion forums threads to look at
922[21:35] sabira: and to go unmaintained for years
923[21:35] F-Tang Steve: But anyway
924[21:35] Spookerton: @xales
925- A species maintainer may veto a pull request that directly affects their species.
926- A developer may veto a pull request that affects a species.
927- Where a species maintainer and a developer disagree *(ie, one wishes to merge, one wishes to veto)*, they must discuss it. If they cannot agree after discussion, they must appeal to the head dev and lore senior.
928[21:35] F-Tang Steve: Basically, trust the maintainers. If they can't be trusted, replace them with someone who is being understanding of the need to have a level of balance.
929[21:35] Spookerton: I don't see how it can be more reasonable than that on either side tbh
930[21:35] Snapshot: No I must have ultimate say
931[21:35] Snapshot: you just
932[21:35] Snapshot: Ugh don't get it
933[21:35] F-Tang Steve: I don't like the directly affect though
934[21:36] F-Tang Steve: there's a level there
935[21:36] F-Tang Steve: Directly affects the *lore* of their species is better
936[21:36] xales: @spookerton I think that's a decent resolution but in terms of what it applies to, I think the issue still exists
937[21:36] Spookerton: well xales didn't like it *not* having directly, lol
938[21:36] xales: like, balancing all playable mobs that happens to include species
939[21:36] sabira: who gets to decide what is and isn't relevant for a species :>
940[21:36] xales: would not be species related
941[21:36] xales: imo
942[21:37] F-Tang Steve: - A species maintainer may veto a pull request that directly affects the lore of their species.
943- Developers can choose not to merge pull requests as they always have
944- Where a species maintainer and a developer disagree (ie, one wishes to merge, one wishes to veto), they must discuss it. If they cannot agree after discussion, they must appeal to the head dev and lore senior.
945[21:37] Spookerton: @xales I don't think there's a real issue there. We very, very rarely have species-related PRs that are contended by a dev for non-code reasons, or by a species maintainer for lore reasons.
946[21:37] ThatOneGuy: Good to me
947[21:37] Spookerton: Ugh discord is being terrible at sending messages in good time
948[21:37] Snapshot: Does it make more sense to say something like
949[21:37] Snapshot: - A species maintainer may veto code changes that have an effect on the representation of their species
950[21:37] mloc: irc when
951[21:37] mloc: a major effect maybe
952[21:38] F-Tang Steve: I'm still fine with this case to case
953[21:38] Snapshot: Because it's more about how a species lore is represented than the actual lore
954[21:38] F-Tang Steve: the loremaster can decide if it impacts it enough
955[21:38] F-Tang Steve: if it's an issue
956[21:38] Spookerton: The reason I left it at "affects their species" is because there are many reasons a maintainer might not want a specific change to happen. Again as steve said this largely comes down to
957[21:38] Spookerton: We expect everyone to be reasonable
958[21:38] Spookerton: And if they are not
959[21:39] Spookerton: *That* is the bad situation
960[21:39] F-Tang Steve: there's the case too where you're adding a feature that impacts everything and your species must fit into it
961[21:39] Spookerton: Not the things it affects
962[21:39] mloc: that's fair
963[21:39] F-Tang Steve: like the one with strength and carrying stuff slowdown
964[21:39] F-Tang Steve: it had to impact every species
965[21:39] F-Tang Steve: but each maintainer got to decide what level their species was at
966[21:39] F-Tang Steve: or with the darkvision change
967[21:40] Spookerton: I don't want to word lawyer anyone into a tiny box in the corner on either side just so people can split hairs over "the rule says it has to affect your LORE, and only SIGNIFICANTLY, so your opinion doesn't matter!"
968[21:40] Spookerton: If a maintainer has a reason to veto something they can discuss it like a reasonable individual, I'm sure.
969[21:40] Spookerton: If a dev has a reason, they can too.
970[21:40] Spookerton: If they disagree, discourse can be had.
971[21:40] Spookerton: It's super easy.
972[21:40] F-Tang Steve: and if they're not, then they can be replaced by someone who can be reasonable
973[21:40] Snapshot: To me this just sounds more like we need to codify "exercise discretion and be reasonable. Both lore maintainers and developers have the ability to veto code changes if it impacts what they are responsible for representing within the server"
974[21:41] Spookerton: I mean that's pretty much what I wrote in the first place, ye.
975[21:41] F-Tang Steve: let's move on
976[21:41] Spookerton: I just made the assumption, rather than stated, that the people involved aren't frothing weasels.
977[21:41] Spookerton: :B
978[21:42] Spookerton: Anyway I think that's the last point you had @xales - if it's talked out that's the end?
979[21:43] xales: I think we're good, Yeah