Jump to content

Torch

Member
  • Content Count

    305
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Torch last won the day on August 19 2019

Torch had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

253 Good Reputation

About Torch

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

705 profile views
  1. He makes a valid argument, just like a few other people on this thread who oppose it. The main point of bringing it up though is his generalization that the people who are opposed are only thinking of themselves so they can keep a powerless rank on a fictional roleplay server that they don't seem to play, and how they'll leave eventually because they are "short term" (the connotation of his statement didn't sit right, and although it is an assumption it read as though players are just disposable and meaningless). Some of the people who oppose the removal of reserves are active leaders. Everybody's discussion in this is important as it affects everyone who plays or has played MRP - even people who aren't active on MRP anymore (@Bishopil included since he's a SWRP main).
  2. Saying you resigned permanently implies that you don't intend to return to the server. If you have no intention to return to the server, then there is no reason for you to have reserves. I originally disagreed with the decision to remove reserves. I've thought about it more and I agree. I think that this could have been dealt with better by giving the community a heads up and hearing out those who are opposed, rather than jumping to the toxic response of "wah wah" like @Bishopil essentially did (although he really isn't wrong) and doing it without full community discussion.
  3. People aren't arguing against why the team felt it was necessary to remove reserves as a whole. Most, if not all, of the responses to this thread that are against the removal of reserves address the issues surrounding how reserves previously worked. So the argument is that removing reserves is not the right call and would be an extreme solution to the problem (and to be plain honest: this community has a repeating theme of going in directions that may be harmful down the line when faced with a serious problem). The guidelines were definitely something that needed to be put into place. The community has proven untrustworthy in handling reserves and that makes it entirely fair that some sort of staff intervention needs to be taken (ie. creating a set of rules and requirements that need to be met to be given/give reserves). The real problem isn't even the idea of reserves. It's the individual community members who abused such a thing, be it by handing out reserves or by abusing their reserves in some way. Punishing the people who aren't abusing their reserves or who have legitimately earned it (I know, throwing this around like we have a clear definition of what "earning" your title on a Gmod server actually looks like) just isn't the way to go. Prior to reserves being removed, this was the case. The only issue was the language used for that specific rule. In some interpretations people would become active duty and had the required 2 weeks to their existing rank cooldown. In others they would wait the required 2 weeks before becoming active duty. Neither one was specifically enforced over the other and there are plenty of cases where both were allowed. At minimum, officer reserves would have to wait 3 weeks to be promoted to O-2. In the end I feel that the guidelines that were being used before this final decision were enough to combat the issues with reserves. Staff need to be more involved with the factions on the server - the freedom that leaders get provides pros and cons, but at some point it needs to be balanced properly.
  4. It wasn't done "all at once" and was definitely phased out a bit prior to making the final decision. Aidan, Jim, and Garnet had felt that it was best to actually define and utilize a guideline when it came to reserves: reserves were only for officers (O-1, of course) and players who were considered "on reserves" had no officer powers (with few exceptions in activities requiring permission from the leader of their faction). More of a confirmed (there were rumors that this was likely gonna happen) heads-up would've been nice so that people who had potentially wanted to return using their reserves could've been given the chance to do so. Understand too that leaders down the line often revert any and all changes from their predecessors as they simply disagreed with how the faction was being run at that time. And I'm sure you do but I'm pointing it out specifically before people form more toxic, negative ideas about previous leaders who were indeed some form of successful (simple examples being Ethan and Conway). This is how reserves should be handled. From what I heard about the community before I started playing, it worked a bit like that but wasn't widely enforced as it was per faction rather than server-wide; leaders were smart in how they handled themselves, much more than they are now. People just seemed to lose touch with that, started handing reserves to people who were previously removed or that were their friends. Sad result.
  5. Small spiel as I'm not active in the community much (if at all?) anymore. The way you've shared how this "case-by-case" will work is unfortunately likely the best you'll get with a system that won't be abused, so long as it doesn't extend past legitimate reasons for an extended absence - meaning absolutely nobody should be given a special case as a previous leader for any reason. (yeah, the rest of my post is rather useless, do note I don't agree with it and I'm upset that it had to come to this but I understand that it was well required). Entirely understand how reserves in the state that they were in were being abused, however I disagree with the removal of reserves near entirely (aside from your "case-by-case" special scenarios). I know that there are people who put tons of work into the faction(s) that they play over the course of their overall playtime. I've done so myself. It's already bad enough that people have these inherent bias' against eachother over rumors of what they did or didn't do in a faction, and having a title that you may have earned stripped from you is in some sorts disrespectful. Speaking for myself here: I'm not in the same scenario as PrisonNightmare. Nor am I in the exact scenario as Buddha. I've put my work into Green Beret and SSO, even disregarding my past leadership of both of them I spent countless hours creating documents (rosters, tryouts, guidelines - all of which have not been properly cared for and destroyed by leaders down the line; but that's another rant for another time) for various faction leaders and working with them (and entry factions) to (at least the intent was to) create a better experience for everybody involved. The result of that and whether it was "good" or "bad" is highly subjective, more so when the community has such fierce and varying opinions on leadership and officer work.
×
×
  • Create New...