Forged Alliance Forever

Re: Protest against locking forum threads

2017-06-08T07:32:05+02:00

there would be a case to necro the topic if the conversation was actually relevant

go and see what necroed the post, it shouldn't have been made, and a new topic with that as the op would have been moved to off topic faster then mayasaka moves to help forums after he loses a game

Statistics: Posted by biass — 08 Jun 2017, 07:32

Re: Protest against locking forum threads

2017-06-07T22:20:16+02:00

I write countless documents for analysis work I do that doesn't get tested in the field until up to years later. If I just "necroed" my work and did something new when it becomes relevant again I would be wasting a lot of time.

In a system as complex as this community, things become relevant again.

You have no right to say it cannot be argued that we should or should not revisit writings from the past.

Statistics: Posted by Morax — 07 Jun 2017, 22:20

Re: Protest against locking forum threads

2017-06-07T21:49:21+02:00

Morax wrote:
It doesn't matter who closed it. It matters that they are closed because the people with the ability to do so can't handle it.

Don't take a position of authority if you can't do that.

I think you're missing the point entirely. If the various people who were posting wish to continue, they can and should make a separate thread about it. I encourage you/others to do so. I do not think it is unreasonable at all to have people A not necro an old thread and B not have that part of the thread be off-topic to the subforum and the original thread content.

I guarantee you the same would happen on any other board, except this thread would be locked too. So please, stop with the nonsense.

Statistics: Posted by Gorton — 07 Jun 2017, 21:49

Re: Protest against locking forum threads

2017-06-07T21:27:20+02:00

It doesn't matter who closed it. It matters that they are closed because the people with the ability to do so can't handle it.

Don't take a position of authority if you can't do that.

Statistics: Posted by Morax — 07 Jun 2017, 21:27

Re: Protest against locking forum threads

2017-06-07T21:24:53+02:00

Hey, no topics were closed by the mod team. But I stand by what I said.

Statistics: Posted by Gorton — 07 Jun 2017, 21:24

Re: Protest against locking forum threads

2017-06-07T21:06:25+02:00

Gorton wrote:
Don't stop trolling = bad mods
Stop trolling = abuse

The thing is, you stop trolling by giving the trolls a ban.. not by closing topics.

Statistics: Posted by Farmsletje — 07 Jun 2017, 21:06

Re: Protest against locking forum threads

2017-06-07T20:49:06+02:00

Don't stop trolling = bad mods
Stop trolling = abuse

In the end, it's up to you guys to decide what you think is right or not, but please consider:

-A conversation about who should be balance councillor and balance team shouldn't be within the forum specifically for discussing balance
-People can start a new on-topic thread if they like
-People can make threads (like this)

I agree that some recently closed threads

There are two.

-t3 field engie? Really?

Statistics: Posted by Gorton — 07 Jun 2017, 20:49

Re: Protest against locking forum threads

2017-06-07T19:24:57+02:00

Anihilnine wrote:
This is suppression of free thought.

There is a distinct difference between free thought and sedition. I agree that some recently closed threads didn't deserve it but that balance thread certainly did. It was necroed by a troll post and nothing new came off it. Better to start a new thread imho.

I really hope for more moderation of polemic posts and trolling. Especially Evildrew and Masyaka have the quality of some discussions sink to an abysmal low.

Statistics: Posted by SpoCk0nd0pe — 07 Jun 2017, 19:24

Re: Protest against locking forum threads

2017-06-07T18:51:15+02:00

Anihilnine wrote:
At the moment on FAF, irritating conversations are censored. This should stop.

wasting your time. glass is full and people are drowning already from overflow.

Statistics: Posted by Cuddles — 07 Jun 2017, 18:51

Re: Protest against locking forum threads

2017-06-07T02:01:24+02:00

At the moment on FAF, irritating conversations are censored. This should stop.

Statistics: Posted by nine2 — 07 Jun 2017, 02:01

Re: Protest against locking forum threads

2017-06-07T01:56:31+02:00

EvanGalea wrote:
I just wish they'd unlock the T3 Field engineer thread.

No.

Statistics: Posted by Lieutenant Lich — 07 Jun 2017, 01:56

Re: Protest against locking forum threads

2017-06-07T00:56:16+02:00

I just wish they'd unlock the T3 Field engineer thread.

Statistics: Posted by Evan_ — 07 Jun 2017, 00:56

Re: Protest against locking forum threads

2017-06-06T20:59:58+02:00

I don't really care about this either way but anyone who is suggesting the previous vote was anything other than meaningless i can only assume is being completely disingenuous. There need not be any pretence that balance should be voted by the community if you don't think it should be, but don't claim it is when it clearly isn't.

There was no vote for a balance councillor to direct the philosophy of balance. I am of course assuming, since i can't find it stated anywhere, the team would vote on the balance councillors proposals and the balance councillor wouldn't be completely irrelevant other than picking 3 people. Following from this, the "community" need only appoint 1 of the 5 people to agree with the balance councillor to make any votes 4-4 with the balance councillor deciding the vote in his favour. I do not know exactly how the votes for these people would have be conducted but it would seem that it would require very few votes for the status quo to remain.

The vote you gave people was hardly a vote at all. Indeed, I voted to keep the status quo simply because the other option was ridiculous and could have created nothing but chaos, which I assume none of us want for FAF.

If you are against the idea of the community voting for any balance issues, that is a perfectly fine stance, but please stop pretending the opposite.

Statistics: Posted by Mel_Gibson — 06 Jun 2017, 20:59

Re: Protest against locking forum threads

2017-06-06T19:33:29+02:00

Evildrew wrote:
Sheeo, the current political structure on FAF is that of a communist regime. Councilors are appointed by a minority, not elected. While there are several roles that have the aim of improving the experience for all, such as server maintenance, moderators, there are roles that affect players experience for the better or worse.

The problem with not having fixed terms is that it is unclear what balance councilors are aiming to achieve In your opinion in concrete measures and by when this will take place.
How can we hold a balance councilor to account when his aim of balancing the races is so vague In your opinion and takes such a long time Everything that is both voluntary and thorough by definition takes a long time. Balance patch progress rate is up as of Jagged's taking the position. Diversity somehow has crept into this balancing act. Things like the mml which were fine In your opinion got changed to make them more interchangeable. Cybran strengths are being eroded because people dont know how to play srtaphim or because setaphim doesnt match there playstyle In your opinion.
There is a player councilor from whom i have not seen a single opinion poll to gage the sentiment We haven't blocked one. Nobody's asked,
which I'd say means he's doing a good job. He's been rotating ladder, lots of feedback and bug reports come in via him, and he's been directing mappers to fix broken ladder maps , opinion or other to the community, except for one thread which no one knew about except his friends (something about which races are good at what tech level or something). This was a simple data thread reporting the facts about faction balance over time.
It had nothing to do with PC popularity.
There is nothing wrong in having fixed terms In your opinion because if the councilor is doing well and the community approves, reelection is very likely In your opinion. It's not possible to please everyone. Fixed terms IMO are more likely to lead to back and forth swings and 0 progress, kind of like current American and UK politics.... Someone might interpret something into a refusal to call an election And others might not. Once again, this is your interpretation, not necessarily the truth behind it reality. ...

Fixed that for you. When you can use evidence rather than opinions, or a sound, properly logically reasoned proposal using the actual state not the imagined one in your head, it will absolutely be taken on board. So is your ranting for that matter. It just has a bit less weight

OT: Jagged was completely correct to lock the thread in question. It was long-dead, and the new resurrection was for ranting and insults, not discussing balance. It was off topic and in the wrong place, so it was locked.

Statistics: Posted by IceDreamer — 06 Jun 2017, 19:33

Re: Protest against locking forum threads

2017-06-06T15:27:31+02:00

For everyone who is interested.

The team will consist of five members elected by the community

The balance councilor can additionally appoint up to three people to the team to make sure unknown but motivated persons are not prevented from contributing. The vote majority will lie with the elected members however.

All balance decisions will be voted by the team, every member has one vote.

The balance councilor will not be part of the team and won't take part in the balance votes. He will decide in case of vote parity, organise the elections, replace inactive or otherwise unfit members and mediate in case of disagreements. He will make sure the balance team is a functional body.

That means that the community chooses the majority of the team members for balance. This would have allowed to vote BH&friends into the team who could have used the majority to change whatever they deem fit.

Spoiler: show

Statistics: Posted by PhilipJFry — 06 Jun 2017, 15:27