Admin Meeting Results 10/14/17

mattlikespie · **Posted:** Sat Oct 21, 2017 6:12 am

Birthstone wrote:

Siberiac wrote:

Birthstone wrote:

Siberiac wrote:

The goal is to make the rule so easy to understand that we don't have to worry about who is highest ranking.

And yet !rules remains virtually the same after every admin meeting, and the confusion on the server doesn't change.

Which would imply they're making them more complicated (or not updating them at all, i can't tell from your statement), which is why these comments are all the more relevant.

It's a combination of both. Some rules aren't clarified that need to be. New rules are clarified poorly with wording that is far from stringent. And !rules itself rarely contains the exact wording of the FAQ posts on the forums.

Yet none of you complaining showed up? It's not "they" didn't word it right or "the Staff" or whoever you think's fault it is. Staff or the others admins don't make the rules, everyone does. If you don't like it, then you shouldn't have declined your invitation. Every new rules it drafted with the opinion and review of every admin present, none of which had any problem with any of the new rules. JS ;)

mattlikespie · **Posted:** Thu Oct 26, 2017 10:26 am

The following admins have lost their admin for failing to attend an admin meeting:

Acid Mac
averesan
El_Xanatos
Joules
Marz
Mikailmanco
Mr. Habibi
Shya
Ray Romano
Tipster
Umreeca
vertical_360
woissa

These admins have 2 weeks, until November 11th, to contact Tricky, Dyno, or myself, to undergo a personal rundown to gain back their admin. Admins that fail to contact one of us will need to reapply for admin.

Dyno · **Posted:** Thu Oct 26, 2017 1:47 pm

Removed Connor from the above list, as he has gotten credit

Birthstone · **Posted:** Thu Oct 26, 2017 2:17 pm

mattlikespie wrote:

Birthstone wrote:

Siberiac wrote:

Birthstone wrote:

Siberiac wrote:

The goal is to make the rule so easy to understand that we don't have to worry about who is highest ranking.

And yet !rules remains virtually the same after every admin meeting, and the confusion on the server doesn't change.

Which would imply they're making them more complicated (or not updating them at all, i can't tell from your statement), which is why these comments are all the more relevant.

It's a combination of both. Some rules aren't clarified that need to be. New rules are clarified poorly with wording that is far from stringent. And !rules itself rarely contains the exact wording of the FAQ posts on the forums.

Yet none of you complaining showed up? It's not "they" didn't word it right or "the Staff" or whoever you think's fault it is. Staff or the others admins don't make the rules, everyone does. If you don't like it, then you shouldn't have declined your invitation. Every new rules it drafted with the opinion and review of every admin present, none of which had any problem with any of the new rules. JS ;)

That's not really fair or accurate, given that I was able to bring up a problem with the rules that nobody addressed. I was working, and yet there were rules and exceptions that flew over everyone's heads in the meeting that were brought up in the follow-up meeting I attended.

Yiggles Moto · **Posted:** Thu Oct 26, 2017 3:14 pm

Yiggles Moto · **Posted:** Thu Oct 26, 2017 3:15 pm

Yiggles Moto wrote:

Birthstone wrote:

And !rules itself rarely contains the exact wording of the FAQ posts on the forums.

Edited--
Misread the post, thought you meant the jbrules page, not the FAQ where things get clarified.

Blooper · **Posted:** Sun Oct 29, 2017 6:22 am

I don't see how the warning rule will not lead to excessive rebelling and abuse of that system. I guess I should listen to the meeting audio because I honestly don't know how that could ever be considered a viable rule. Is there any chance of the warning rule being removed?

Central · **Posted:** Sun Oct 29, 2017 6:29 am

Blooper wrote:

I don't see how the warning rule will not lead to excessive rebelling and abuse of that system. I guess I should listen to the meeting audio because I honestly don't know how that could ever be considered a viable rule. Is there any chance of the warning rule being removed?

I agree, this rule isn't really one of it's greatest, some people don't understand what this means, I tried explaining the best I could, this is what I had come up with for an explanation:

"Imagine the warden saying "Rush to my spray everytime I spray it and freeze when sprayed." and I rush to the first spray, and he resprays it. I stay, thinking that the warden only specified "Rush to my spray and freeze." - The warden cannot kill me, the warden must warn me that I am not following the orders, and brush me up to speed of what the order really is. The next time I do something like this, or not follow wardens orders, I can be killed for it as I was previously warned for not following orders. This does not happen when someone is accessing secrets, or directly rebelling. If a T is accessing a secret, or directly rebelling, no warnings need to be made, they can be killed instantly."

Was I right when explaining this?

Needy · **Posted:** Sun Oct 29, 2017 9:15 am

Central wrote:

Blooper wrote:

I don't see how the warning rule will not lead to excessive rebelling and abuse of that system. I guess I should listen to the meeting audio because I honestly don't know how that could ever be considered a viable rule. Is there any chance of the warning rule being removed?

I agree, this rule isn't really one of it's greatest, some people don't understand what this means, I tried explaining the best I could, this is what I had come up with for an explanation:

"Imagine the warden saying "Rush to my spray everytime I spray it and freeze when sprayed." and I rush to the first spray, and he resprays it. I stay, thinking that the warden only specified "Rush to my spray and freeze." - The warden cannot kill me, the warden must warn me that I am not following the orders, and brush me up to speed of what the order really is. The next time I do something like this, or not follow wardens orders, I can be killed for it as I was previously warned for not following orders. This does not happen when someone is accessing secrets, or directly rebelling. If a T is accessing a secret, or directly rebelling, no warnings need to be made, they can be killed instantly."

Was I right when explaining this?

Also have to remember that if you (the T) don’t ask for a repeat and continue to stand there then the guard(s) may legitimately kill you. Basically your job to follow-up with the warden. And not entirely positive that’s a T can be killed because they were previously warned for not following orders is accurate. Thought each direct order was separate and each prisoner had to be warned regardless of how many warnings they were given; however, I timed out half way through the meeting so may have missed it.

Also quick clarification, because the rule for transporting T’s by spray was removed does that mean if the warden were to do some dumb shit like “Freeze on my spray” and the prisoners freeze on his spray – he follows up with another spray which all the prisoners continue to follow and he says something like “Didn’t say everytime hahhhah”. The warden has to warn each terrorist to go back to where his spray was originally because technically it’s not a death game, yeah?

Minion · **Posted:** Sun Oct 29, 2017 9:24 am

every month, being a ct becomes even worse.

Register

Login

Admin Meeting Results 10/14/17

Print view

Previous topic | Next topic

Who is online