All Ts

It's as if we're in the holiday season and most peoples priority isn't managing an online gaming server. Unacceptable my fellow staff members.. so unacceptable.

Time zones exist my dude.

I'm 20 in China, but still 19 in the US.. fucking fuck. Seriously have a happy new year everyone, don't get too drunk and stay safe.

I think that people should be allowed to reply to each others posts within admin applications, criticize points, and encourage further discussion. In the FAQ and through people in the higher-staff people replying starts "unnecessary arguments" because people "don't agree" or think someone's "post is dumb". I think that many of the recent discussions are necessary considering: the hesitancy of higher-ups to make their own criticisms or moderate the outcome of admin applications being quite polarizing the willingness of higher-ups to accept/reject apps which have few supports/reapplies based off personal opinion the complexity of some of the arguments being made the system creating more of a skew at both ends due to decrease in required post count the connectivity between the higher-up team and the general server population I am also going to say that this seems to be something that has been enforced extremely loosely and at personal bias. I remember many posts criticizing my views on candidates when I was a SA (not able to reply on applications) being left up by a former VP due to the person in questions point being "valid" and I've seen many threads where higher-ups themselves thank posts that are calling into questions someone's opinion. I think someone should be able to reply to someone else, but if there is a rule then people should stop subjectively enforcing it whenever they feel like it. Everyone should be able to use admin applications to have a discourse and forum moderators should be moderating that discourse not by judging which opinions are right or wrong but by measuring whether the conversation is constructive. If someone posts "your opinion is dumb, you're wrong and retarded" there's obviously an issue there, but I think that trying a little bit more transparency and encouraging an environment of free thought is better than the dysfunctional, fragmented system SG has right now.

I think it's been used as an excuse to remove maps and add maps by managers in the past when they shouldn't and still up until recently. It would be as if everyone voted for an admin candidate then one person who votes against them with clear almost non-arguable information of them being toxic, irrational, and overall a bad candidate for admin- yet the BD's decide to approve them due to strict vote. I don't know if this is reason enough to remove the vote, but I also don't know if I agree with the comparison of admin applications to map suggestions. With admin applications I think they are way more polarized, prone to bias, and seeing how others are voting would come with more skewed popular opinion. If you disagree with someone on a map not being added the likelihood they're going to get into a squabble over opinion with you is relatively low compared to how something like admin applications effect the community and how they are prone to conflict & personal feelings become passionate. Both are subjective, but you have to gauge the level of impact, abuse, usefulness and accuracy. I would say based on prior experience my view is that there are threads where it doesn't work at all as a good indicator but the majority of threads I've seen it work fine.

Damn I didn't know Christmas was just around the corner.

I completely agree with you, but it's not an SG thing as much as it's a people thing in general. In the US and western world racism against black people in specific is basically up their in the ladder of the worst kind person you can be. Racism against other races isn't taken as seriously because people are starting to genuinely believe the rhetoric that because black people were slaves X years ago that we should have to pay a tax to make up for it (also known as a reparations tax). I wouldn't say that this is generating more or even equivalent hate towards the other races but the amount of "you're a white male" and identity politics being thrown around nowadays is absurd. This isn't just "wow I'm white look at me", this bleeds over to almost every other race because there seems to be a tier of oppression in the eyes of many. The assumption is that if you're a black male you're less oppressed than the genderless black woman who also happens to be a single mother. To wrap this around, people are starting to accept absurd standards to what is racist and how bad x vs y is rather than just saying "you know this is all bad". This is a tangible thing happening in regards to school quotas, public service job test/acceptance and creates a blanket bogus hierarchy. I've seen admins be much more harsh on racism against Blacks then Asians, Whites and Hispanics- it's a complete double standard and isn't acceptable if SG means for people like you to take the rules seriously. I don't think your name is a complete testament to this, but I would be really hard to convince that if your name was "I am a dirty monkey" with a picture of a black person it wouldn't have gotten someone's attention ages ago. I think there's also the angle where there is some ambiguity in the rules about relation between names and avatars as to whether it is comparable and fair for an admin to judge it that way. Just my 2 cents.

Well the point of the thread is to get a solid answer at some point from a higher-up, but given it's a forum I don't see how people giving their opinion on it is devolving but just having a discussion lol. You should not have any chance to get banned for something falsely when you're following rules connected to it, there should not be a risk at all. I think that is probably one of the point of contention regarding the word regardless of what I think about the term directly as I already stated that in the OP.

I agree, I feel we should either not have it or allow it cause I think it opens the door to personal bias.

Okay great man, my question wasn't about my group of friends and if that does have anything to do with it why would we get differential treatment. I understand you don't like x, y, z person on the forums but you continuously make salty and unneeded posts as perfect examples being this, Gumline's admin application, and suggestions by myself and Dominic. I even tried to reach out to you the other day to let you know that I don't care about the original situation that Montag and Dominic had with you regarding leaving and some comments you've made, but yet you continue to make false and defamatory statements with zero evidence. I don't say racist shit on Steam-Gamers and I never have, so unless you have actual evidence of that you should probably stop saying things with no evidence to back it up. I'm the person who was going super hard, banned Pandapwnr for it when he was even slightly saying something racist, I give out longer bans for it than any admin probably in recent history and I was literally taking shit from my own friend group for enforcing that rule. Any warnings any of my friends have gotten for saying things on the edge of racism, they came from me. As for stance on racism currently is that SG should probably allow slang, but still be heavily against actual tangible racism. As for your last part about skirting the rule, how is saying a word against the rules when that word is allowed and the context behind it provides zero racist narrative or context. If that's how it is then by default anyone/everyone saying it should be banned for doing so, and not what Caution originally said in a recent appeal.

Is this term racist or not? I understand according to the appeal Caution answered that the answer is no as they didn't even know what it was and that context matters entirely in that the person should clearly be being racist. Then yesterday or today, Montag was banned for the use of the term. This post is not meant to defend him, but talk about whether it is allowed. Personally I think the terms current 2016-2018 rise to being a meme should make it racist and not allowed according to our strict stance, but I don't want myself or someone else to say a term and be banned for it. Personally I don't use that term, besides situations where I've spoken about its use/level of racism and in the past I warned someone who after the whole situation with an LG switched their name to "ooga booga" on TeamSpeak after prior warnings of racism mere days before. Regardless of all of the context behind that situation there was no actual punishment given but only a warning, so naturally I'm really confused as to where this term actually stands given these 3 incidents.

I'm playing some ArmA 3 cause I'm anticipating being bored, dunno what mods or servers I'm going to play or run in the past I've played WW2 mods, Exile, Altis and just regular King of The Hill, Wasteland type shit. I have like 600 hours on the game so I'm pretty good and have like 1200 in ArmA 2 mainly Wasteland and DayZ.

I'd totally write some gaming news for money per article. I want to brush up on my real writing where I can't call people cunts and motherfuckers.

[video=youtube;jgNvzc-ZdME]

Hey! My post was genuine I like the post layout, event idea, and banner.

Ned brings idealistic and cultural diversity to our great community. While some of his views are inconsistent with each other and he is pretty much useless as a staff member I appreciate you @Ned.

Solid event, good job Manny.

After 5 years DayZ standalone releases "officially", I'm probably going to try it out again on whatever account I have the game on but I am kind of surprised that after all this time they actually released the game. The mod was one of my favorite things of all time to play on the computer and I put atleast 2000 hours into ArmA 2 as result. The game is free for the next 3 days and is 15% off.

The SG Jailbreak Tutorial

To me, this update opens a pretty clear loophole that anyone with half a brain, a VPN, new account and hacks could grief the servers super fucking badly. I don't think it's an awful idea to give it a shot, but I think the whole idea that being overly optimistic about people's future actions and that the door NEEDS to be left open to new players is ridiculous. When you think about something should be changed, you have to think about how that could be exploited and in it's worst scenario how badly it could be. Whether or not the servers are prime, it would probably bewilder you guys or any other community for that matter not placing some time restraint based on someones playtime in CS:GO or some other general indicator that they aren't some dickhead coming to grief. Another point I'd like to touch on is that while it's awesome that admins are equipped to deal with the bad dudes, the admins are not there for a pretty large minority of situations (depending on the day even majority) and arguably enough that doing this just for more players might not be a great idea.. Leave it to Valve to do this shit to their game anyway, guess more kids to buy crates and skins for the holiday season and no thought put into how dumb this move is given their dogshit anti-cheat and reliance on Overwatch to make up for it.

Brian got the "fuck my shit like Elvis" haircut.

Christmas event across all servers or referendum on disbanding events team.

same

That's me alright.