Community Consultation on PD Chief.

[Lucius Husky]

I was not originally going to reply but I can't leave these terrible arguments out in the open without being heavily contested.


Because the 'perfect person' might very well be above that rank, and might very well be able to do both. This is a game after all, and people from all walks of life play it, being an incredibly effective Chief and Staff Member whilst also having a full-time job is something that can be, and has been done, Acer is a wonderful example for this.


Literally nobody said this, but whatever. What many of you fail to understand is that qualities that make a good Chief, or Command Member in general, also make a good staff member. The overlap isn't some big conspiracy like some people like to idiotically believe, nor is it the dumbest of all opinions which would be to call it a "friend circle".


There is precedent to remove Chiefs who are underperforming, this has also been done pretty publicly, this only serves to punish people before they have the chance to underperform, which is unsurprisingly not a given as many who think like this think.


This is not only not at all true anymore, nor is it a good argument, as even if it were, there would be absolutely no correlation to their staff rank, so this is a really weird thing to bring up in this context.


This is fair, but we've gone through many, many Chiefs recently, more quickly than ever, so this problem is solved. How is it logical to punish someone who hasn't done anything wrong, or punish them for other peoples' mistakes?


Again, just because someone isn't a staff member doesn't mean they aren't a new Chief. A Chief can be both new and staff!


This is a bad argument. It does not explain why "other people" are better than staff members who also have not held a Chief position.

You're answering all my replies as if I have not made it clear that I dont mind anyone with a high staff rank applying. I just wouldnt like to see them hold the rank if they are to be selected due to activity issues, its not that deep.

The rank or person isnt my issue, the activity is. Its annoying seeing and a staff rank like admin, and a PD rank like COD going to waste because someone cant keep up with both (which is completely understandable), but that should be considered.

 

[Inchs]

I was not originally going to reply but I can't leave these terrible arguments out in the open without being heavily contested.


Because the 'perfect person' might very well be above that rank, and might very well be able to do both. This is a game after all, and people from all walks of life play it, being an incredibly effective Chief and Staff Member whilst also having a full-time job is something that can be, and has been done, Acer is a wonderful example for this.


Literally nobody said this, but whatever. What many of you fail to understand is that qualities that make a good Chief, or Command Member in general, also make a good staff member. The overlap isn't some big conspiracy like some people like to idiotically believe, nor is it the dumbest of all opinions which would be to call it a "friend circle".


There is precedent to remove Chiefs who are underperforming, this has also been done pretty publicly, this only serves to punish people before they have the chance to underperform, which is unsurprisingly not a given as many who think like this think.


This is not only not at all true anymore, nor is it a good argument, as even if it were, there would be absolutely no correlation to their staff rank, so this is a really weird thing to bring up in this context.


This is fair, but we've gone through many, many Chiefs recently, more quickly than ever, so this problem is solved. How is it logical to punish someone who hasn't done anything wrong, or punish them for other peoples' mistakes?


Again, just because someone isn't a staff member doesn't mean they aren't a new Chief. A Chief can be both new and staff!


This is a bad argument. It does not explain why "other people" are better than staff members who also have not held a Chief position.

Not sure how it goes now but staff would hold high ranks for months, often well over a year meaning someone who joined the community as an outstanding member would be unable to potentially go for a role for years at a time. It goes more for fairness and who actually chooses the CoD, if its voted then thats fair enough but if its staff choosing staff then theres a potential for bias

 

[Clarky]

You're answering all my replies as if I have not made it clear that I dont mind anyone with a high staff rank applying. I just wouldnt like to see them hold the rank if they are to be selected due to activity issues, its not that deep.

The rank or person isnt my issue, the activity is. Its annoying seeing and a staff rank like admin, and a PD rank like COD going to waste because someone cant keep up with both (which is completely understandable), but that should be considered.

You are bringing up old points that have already been combated and Acerius has proven this. Your posts aren't very clear ngl.

 

[Collier]

Not sure how it goes now but staff would hold high ranks for months, often well over a year meaning someone who joined the community as an outstanding member would be unable to potentially go for a role for years at a time. It goes more for fairness and who actually chooses the CoD, if its voted then thats fair enough but if its staff choosing staff then theres a potential for bias

This has absolutely nothing to do with them being staff. The decision-making process will involve a lot of people, from server ownership, community management, and senior administration. There is no reason for any of us to favour a staff member if they are worse candidates than others. These arguments are still very bad

 

[Inchs]

This has absolutely nothing to do with them being staff. The decision-making process will involve a lot of people, from server ownership, community management, and senior administration. There is no reason for any of us to favour a staff member if they are worse candidates than others. These arguments are still very bad

Is it impossible to see why community members might not like a staff member being chosen exclusively by staff?

 

[Bnjemann]

Genuinely wish people stopped pretending they really give a shit about who holds CoD positions and staff positions simultaneously and horrifically overstating the amount of time you need to be CoD. The reality of the situation is the majority of the chief positions responsibilities is just keep us command members in check and ensures we are doing our jobs. This wouldn't even take like 3 evenings a week tops.

The position itself, whilst demanding, is incredibly overstated in responsibilities by the majority of people who are criticising it. I am in no way denoting the efforts of any previous chiefs with this statement, I am merely stating a fact. All divisions are run by their division command, all Branches are run by line managers who keep the command teams in check, The chiefs just make sure everything is running smoothly, which just takes reading our discord channel conversations and speaking to us like once every 2 weeks. Chiefs also oversee PD suggestions, which are done like once every 3 months. Admin bonuses are sent out by Tinyslayer, the chiefs just send us the spreadsheet. They also Handle disputes of IA complaint outcomes, which in this case, probably only 1 of these disputes requires any sort of effortful looking into every season as most IA punishments nowadays are for entirely as described in policy violations.

Not being staff doesnt mean they're not competent. There is a selection for a reason in which the best candidate will be chosen. How will limiting what ranks should hold high responsibilities as staff and PD make a difference in finding the perfect person.. ?

The point went completely over your head. Ellie was saying that limiting the position to non-staff members only is a terrible idea because then ideal candidates who hold staff positions, who are likely going to be the ideal candidates might I add, are either forced to resign or are forced to sacrifice their candidacy for staff positions because they don't want to give them up.

No, but if they are choosen they should make the right decision and focus their time on one thing, not multiple.

Acting like CoD takes a huge amount of effort and 150 hours a week. It really doesn't. Maybe if we wind up with someone who decides to fire the command teams and run the PD as an autocracy then this would be the case, But this won't happen. In reality the majority of the work is done by command teams. Chiefs responsibilities are incredibly mundane tasks. Everything, even policy changes, has a committee for it now. Whilst the past of the PD felt like a 3 man circus, now it has expanded back to the point where chiefs responsibilities that were previously being bestowed solely onto SMT are a shared responsibility with command members.

The issue before was that staff would hold roles for months and never have a risk of losing it and not giving new players a chance, if it's being voted on regularly then I don't see it as a problem but new players should get a chance

If we had community votes on ground breaking decisions such as positions of power, our community manager would have already been replaced by someone you know I'm referring to and some sweater that came on and spoke in a funny voice for a week. Electing someone is overall a terrible idea on the premise that the majority of players won't fucking care enough to vote. Someone should be judged on what is the set standard of competency by people with full understandings of it, not by people who haven't held any positions within the PD, have no understanding of it, and vote for someone who is making absurd promises because they think of the promised outcome as factual without considering any logistics. Could you imagine if I won that election? I came second in that. I'm going to be brutally honest, 2019 me running the PD would have been a clusterfuck and I'd probably have reverted all my changes eventually, lest we forget the majority of the other applicants in the election vanished around 6 months later, Including our chief (Not at his own volition, I hold nothing against him for that). But what does it matter if they're popular, Right?

Having a CoD election would eventually spell out disaster.

I already gave my example with McGlinchy, McGlinchy did such a great job and spend lots of time into the PD and made this possible by resigning from admin.

Until Community management stepped in and made them resign due to poor activity?

And yes, In my opinion everyone has a chance, also admins, they should apply if they want the position. But if they are chosen they should resign from their staff position. My issue is not people applying while they are staff and hold a high rank. My issue is them keeping the role after and then leaving AND their staff role and PD hanging somewhere midway. And this has happend enough times before.

Literally ANYONE can lose motivation for any reason and someone who has the free time to be staff should be able to keep up CoD candidacy too? What is this logic? If someone's showing no signs of disappearing anytime soon due to their track record as staff and have demonstrated that they are responsible enough in a position of authority of such calibre, surely this should be a merit to their application, no?

And yes, In my opinion everyone has a chance, also admins, they should apply if they want the position. But if they are chosen they should resign from their staff position. My issue is not people applying while they are staff and hold a high rank. My issue is them keeping the role after and then leaving AND their staff role and PD hanging somewhere midway. And this has happend enough times before.

Your example of this was someone who was eventually forced to resign from their position due to inactivity so I'm taking this with a pinch of salt.

Not sure how it goes now but staff would hold high ranks for months, often well over a year meaning someone who joined the community as an outstanding member would be unable to potentially go for a role for years at a time. It goes more for fairness and who actually chooses the CoD, if its voted then thats fair enough but if its staff choosing staff then theres a potential for bias

Please name a single Ideal candidate you have seen who is a new player who would outshine anyone else, most new players end up spending their first 3 minutes on the server being scraped off the intersection whilst everyone laughs at their Funny IC name like "Big Ballman" or something along the lines. In the last chief decision there was absolutely no potential for Bias. Acer had been back for like 3 months, was a corporal, was not staff, and didn't have any real connections in the staff team or with anyone who made that decision to hire him at the time. He came out of buttfuck nowhere and despite my huge scepticism towards him initially, he was the best chief we've ever had and I'll die on that hill if I have to.

Constantly shifting command teams with the logic of "Mum said its my turn to use the Xbox" Impedes progress, puts people in positions where they revert great progress being made, and jumbles everything up to confuse everyone. Everyone who gets an upper command position immediately makes huge changes. TFU as a whole is almost incomparable between the differences in virtually everything since I got command to when my predecessor held the position. RTU Changed when @Mina became head of it. Operations services as a whole changed positively and massively under @Mim. If we take this logic that I put for Command members, and apply it to the literal head of the whole PD, the changes could be catastrophic.


My advice for everyone would be to go for this Chief positions yourselves if you genuinely have concerns its going to go to someone completely underqualified, because if you want something done right, do it yourselves.

 

[Inchs]

Genuinely wish people stopped pretending they really give a shit about who holds CoD positions and staff positions simultaneously and horrifically overstating the amount of time you need to be CoD. The reality of the situation is the majority of the chief positions responsibilities is just keep us command members in check and ensures we are doing our jobs. This wouldn't even take like 3 evenings a week tops.

The position itself, whilst demanding, is incredibly overstated in responsibilities by the majority of people who are criticising it. I am in no way denoting the efforts of any previous chiefs with this statement, I am merely stating a fact. All divisions are run by their division command, all Branches are run by line managers who keep the command teams in check, The chiefs just make sure everything is running smoothly, which just takes reading our discord channel conversations and speaking to us like once every 2 weeks. Chiefs also oversee PD suggestions, which are done like once every 3 months. Admin bonuses are sent out by Tinyslayer, the chiefs just send us the spreadsheet. They also Handle disputes of IA complaint outcomes, which in this case, probably only 1 of these disputes requires any sort of effortful looking into every season as most IA punishments nowadays are for entirely as described in policy violations.


The point went completely over your head. Ellie was saying that limiting the position to non-staff members only is a terrible idea because then ideal candidates who hold staff positions, who are likely going to be the ideal candidates might I add, are either forced to resign or are forced to sacrifice their candidacy for staff positions because they don't want to give them up.


Acting like CoD takes a huge amount of effort and 150 hours a week. It really doesn't. Maybe if we wind up with someone who decides to fire the command teams and run the PD as an autocracy then this would be the case, But this won't happen. In reality the majority of the work is done by command teams. Chiefs responsibilities are incredibly mundane tasks. Everything, even policy changes, has a committee for it now. Whilst the past of the PD felt like a 3 man circus, now it has expanded back to the point where chiefs responsibilities that were previously being bestowed solely onto SMT are a shared responsibility with command members.


If we had community votes on ground breaking decisions such as positions of power, our community manager would have already been replaced by someone you know I'm referring to and some sweater that came on and spoke in a funny voice for a week. Electing someone is overall a terrible idea on the premise that the majority of players won't fucking care enough to vote. Someone should be judged on what is the set standard of competency by people with full understandings of it, not by people who haven't held any positions within the PD, have no understanding of it, and vote for someone who is making absurd promises because they think of the promised outcome as factual without considering any logistics. Could you imagine if I won that election? I came second in that. I'm going to be brutally honest, 2019 me running the PD would have been a clusterfuck and I'd probably have reverted all my changes eventually, lest we forget the majority of the other applicants in the election vanished around 6 months later, Including our chief (Not at his own volition, I hold nothing against him for that). But what does it matter if they're popular, Right?

Having a CoD election would eventually spell out disaster.


Until Community management stepped in and made them resign due to poor activity?


Literally ANYONE can lose motivation for any reason and someone who has the free time to be staff should be able to keep up CoD candidacy too? What is this logic? If someone's showing no signs of disappearing anytime soon due to their track record as staff and have demonstrated that they are responsible enough in a position of authority of such calibre, surely this should be a merit to their application, no?


Your example of this was someone who was eventually forced to resign from their position due to inactivity so I'm taking this with a pinch of salt.

Please name a single Ideal candidate you have seen who is a new player who would outshine anyone else, most new players end up spending their first 3 minutes on the server being scraped off the intersection whilst everyone laughs at their Funny IC name like "Big Ballman" or something along the lines. In the last chief decision there was absolutely no potential for Bias. Acer had been back for like 3 months, was a corporal, was not staff, and didn't have any real connections in the staff team or with anyone who made that decision to hire him at the time. He came out of buttfuck nowhere and despite my huge scepticism towards him initially, he was the best chief we've ever had and I'll die on that hill if I have to.

Constantly shifting command teams with the logic of "Mum said its my turn to use the Xbox" Impedes progress, puts people in positions where they revert great progress being made, and jumbles everything up to confuse everyone. Everyone who gets an upper command position immediately makes huge changes. TFU as a whole is almost incomparable between the differences in virtually everything since I got command to when my predecessor held the position. RTU Changed when @Mina became head of it. Operations services as a whole changed positively and massively under @Mim. If we take this logic that I put for Command members, and apply it to the literal head of the whole PD, the changes could be catastrophic.


My advice for everyone would be to go for this Chief positions yourselves if you genuinely have concerns its going to go to someone completely underqualified, because if you want something done right, do it yourselves.

Efan goes from multiple perma bans to CM within a handful of months and you don't think someone could come out of nowhere to be a good CoD?

 

[Google Chrome]

A simple solution is just to delete the pd. More fps + pd op

 

[Collier]

Efan goes from multiple perma bans to CM within a handful of months and you don't think someone could come out of nowhere to be a good CoD?

Clearly you did not read his reply, read the part about Acer! Also, to go back to your point about staff choosing staff, none of us are going to make the decision based on the degree of friendship we have with whatever candidate, and it's not like that would even be a realistic thing any one of us could just do ourselves. We all want the best candidate, and will decide who that is collectively.

What would the alternative be? Choosing a bunch of non-staff members to pick? And who chooses them? What if they're our proxies! Oh no what if all of this is a massive conspiracy??!!?!?

Voting is complete non-starter, so what exactly do you propose that is better than the system we have chosen?

 

[Inchs]

Clearly you did not read his reply, read the part about Acer! Also, to go back to your point about staff choosing staff, none of us are going to make the decision based on the degree of friendship we have with whatever candidate, and it's not like that would even be a realistic thing any one of us could just do ourselves. We all want the best candidate, and will decide who that is collectively.

What would the alternative be? Choosing a bunch of non-staff members to pick? And who chooses them? What if they're our proxies! Oh no what if all of this is a massive conspiracy??!!?!?

Voting is complete non-starter, so what exactly do you propose that is better than the system we have chosen?

Voting in the community between candidates work, don't forget how you first got CoD.

 

[Mina]

I just think there should be a fair playing ground for the selection and I think we should definitely allow everyone to apply, not disallowing someone simply because of their rank within the staff team. Everyone who applies for the role should know what they're getting into and how active they must be to uphold a good standard within the role. I also think that the people making the decision are well fit and capable to choose a suitable candidate without being bias because some applicants may be staff members.

 

[Collier]

Voting in the community between candidates work, don't forget how you first got CoD.

Yes, I was elected, but I have always maintained that that was a terrible way to choose a Chief, and I still think it's terrible. I got elected because I harassed everyone who didn't actually give a fuck to go and vote for me. I won because my friends did the same. I ran an incredibly aids and annoying campaign and would not shut the fuck up until people voted for me.

 

[Inchs]

Yes, I was elected, but I have always maintained that that was a terrible way to choose a Chief, and I still think it's terrible. I got elected because I harassed everyone who didn't actually give a fuck to go and vote for me. I won because my friends did the same. I ran an incredibly aids and annoying campaign and would not shut the fuck up until people voted for me.

Hold voting internally in the PD then

 

[Bnjemann]

Hold voting internally in the PD then

Its the same community...

 

[Goonsberg]

Voting in the community between candidates work, don't forget how you first got CoD.

My guy wants the same group of people who just tried to nominate Jay Hatch as Honorary just for a laugh (no disrespect towards Jay).

So many people on these forums that a) never play the server anymore so dont know who is a good candidate and b) just want to be funny and will purposely vote for the worst candidate.

 

[Clarky]

Hold voting internally in the PD then

Bro just give in

 

[Acerius]

If I receive a proper apology from the party concerned in light of what happened this week, which addresses why what they did was so egregious and goes against everything the principle of having a Chief of Department stands for, I would consider coming back.

I would even go through the normal application process and introduce a ready portfolio to stand next to any current applicant, so that it remains an open and fair competition based on merit, if preferred. However an apology from that party, who knows who they are, is a prerequisite. The apology can be made in private so long as it is sincere.

I did not make an announcement addressing why I left because I did not want to cause any trouble upon my departure, but seeing this now conveniently introduced poll has fuelled my rage even further.

 

[Inchs]

Its the same community...

yeah my bad i forgot half of the people on the server get ssgt then afk

 

[Inchs]

Acerius proving even further my point

If I receive a proper apology from the party concerned in light of what happened this week, which addresses why what they did was so egregious and goes against everything the principle of having a Chief of Department stands for, I would consider coming back.

I would even go through the normal application process and introduce a ready portfolio to stand next to any current applicant, so that it remains an open and fair competition based on merit, if preferred. However an apology from that party, who knows who they are, is a prerequisite. The apology can be made in private so long as it is sincere.

I did not make an announcement addressing why I left because I did not want to cause any trouble upon my departure, but seeing this now conveniently introduced poll has fuelled my rage even further.

This guy proving my point that it should be a community vote since someone with apparent power cant be trusted?

 

[Acerius]

Acerius proving even further my point

This guy proving my point that it should be a community vote since someone with apparent power cant be trusted?

What?