• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About Caution

  • Rank
    Because I was Inverted

Recent Profile Visitors

34586 profile views
  1. they wanted to make admin apps require a 90% approval and a $50 down payment this is the best i could talk them down
  2. Good afternoon everyone, As I have mentioned a few times now, we are actively engaged in expanding SG. This is starting to branch out into several areas - many of which are leaps of faith, trial and error, etc. New servers, expanding beyond PayPal (on my to-do list is creating a bank account for SG since a lot of things require one of my personal debit cards anyways), new policies, etc. It may seem like it's taking awhile to push stuff out, but we're just getting to it when we can. The ban system was a major overhaul, and next on the list is probably revamping how we handle admin strikes. There's a reason that I am trying to get some of this stuff pushed out soon, or at least begin conversations of what it looks like. It's not really a secret, I just haven't shared it publicly yet I guess, but I intend on resigning from my position in the federal government to pick up contracting in the Middle-East for a few years - starting sometime in the next few months. What that looks like for my activity...I'm not entirely sure. I'm hoping it actually allows me to be a bit more active because it seems the schedule is much more consistent. Having been to the Middle-East before, I know not to plan on that too much though until I get there and see what's up. As always, in the event of my extended absence where I cannot be reached, Gator has the ultimate and final say in any and all matters pertaining to SG. I feel like it is important to start getting a lot of these changes started, if not to at least see what works for us and what doesn't. Moving to a better automated payment system was a huge load off (thanks Liam) - but I do want to initiate some sort of 'If you're not set up in x amount of days, we'll give you more' type of official policy before I go. What that looks like...I'm not entirely sure. I've kind of already been doing that as is once it hits 2 weeks, but it hasn't been much of a problem lately save for a few oddballs. Anyways, if there are some major changes to the overall community you'd like to see or bring up, feel free to post a thread or send me a message. If it's worthwhile, I'll add it to the discussion and maybe purchase a game or something for unique ideas that haven't been brought up. While SG is a great place that many call home, there is a lot we can still do to better this place. We're all in this together and we are our only limits to how far we can take SG. salam alaikum Thanks everyone!
  3. Thanks everyone for the feedback and votes. It may take a little bit of time to implement successfully, but I think we'll actively move towards a bit of transparency in some capacity, see what works for us, fine-tune as needed, etc. To clarify, people sitting in on BD meetings is not a Q&A session, it's more of a fly-on-the-wall thing. Discussions regarding actual personal / private matters obviously would not take place in a channel full of people. Additionally, I don't promote people to BD who won't speak their mind in front of people. We've had BD's like that in the past, and it doesn't work out well. If people being in the channel alters the course of a conversation because a member of the Board is afraid to speak their mind, I have already failed as President.
  4. @Caution this dood forum account is older watchu gonna do about it :P


  5. Hello everyone, One of the next topics of discussion on the BD plate is providing for a bit more transparency among BD meetings. There have been several ways brought up with doing this - posting notes, posting recordings, allowing people to join the channel but not talk, etc. I'm creating this poll to see who would actually be interested in even attending or following up on stuff like this. If there aren't many people who would be interested, it may not be something we look into implementing. Obviously, there are going to be private topics (such as some punishment discussions) that will not be made public. This isn't to do with IA / BD affairs, it's more meant to be when the BD's get together to discuss major or minor changes in the community. Throwing this poll up to gauge interest, and see if there are any alternative ideas that might be presented. Thanks
  6. still waiting on the new 'realism' patches - mopping in the rain, endless formations, demotions, depression, divorce, etc. gonna be sweet
  7. Anything can be appealed, and the warn in chat or kick policy prior to banning is not discussed our brought up here, so it is not changed. Anything not specifically mentioned can be considered to be unchanged.
  8. Good morning everyone, As I referenced in my previous announcement, we've got some major community changes slowly being implemented. I've got two topics on the list today: Ban policy & Racism. I'm going to talk about our change in our stance on racism first, because it will lead into the next portion regarding bans. For those of you that have been around for awhile, you saw how hardcore our 'No Racism' rule was. People were instantly-banned in some scenarios, or banned heavily oftentimes. In an effort to try and see if there would be some comfortable breathing room by relaxing on that rule, we changed it up to allow racism - but give admins the discretion on how far is too far. The intent was basically to allow light joking, banter, etc. We knew that there would be a few people who took it too far (like with anything), but after letting it play out for awhile, we're ready to change it up a bit again - mainly because it caused confusion among members and admins alike on how far is too far. While the old mentality was too far in one direction, our rule as it stands today is a bit too far in the opposite direction: so we're trying to find the spot in the middle. Racism Effective immediately, we're changing the stance on conduct normally deemed as 'Racism' in SG. Admins and higher, there will be additional threads listed in the admin sections to reemphasize this. Moving forward: Forums - Not allowed in any capacity, meaning no slang, jokes, etc. Music and whatnot in the appropriate section(s) is fine. Discord - Not allowed in any capacity. In an effort to partner with Discord, we are not allowing any and all racist slang, jokes, pictures, etc. However, if you're in a private channel among friends and no one reports anything, did it actually happen? I'm going to leave it at that. Servers - To be straight up with you guys, I had a hard time wording this. I can explain the point we're trying to get at all day and night, but someone will always loophole around whatever we post. We stole this from another community's rules because, honestly, they worded it better than what I could think of. Blatant or extreme racism is NOT allowed. Small jokes are fine. Use of the N-word with the hard 'R' is strictly prohibited. To be frank, the hard 'r' was a huge issue, and that's what we're trying to solve. We all like to mess around and tell jokes, but that in particular is not what we stand for or what we encourage people to do. If this continues to be an issue, we will reevaluate our stance and discuss as needed. We have also done away with the 'Bannable Words' list. We all know what should and should not be on that list, so there isn't a need for us to publicly display that. In addition to this, the ban length and general punishments for 'Racism' are going to be lessened, which leads into the next topic: change in ban policy. Ban Policy This is going to be two-part, covering ban policy in general & ban lengths. As it stands now, here are the basic admin rules regarding ban lengths and whatnot: Moving forward, this is what it shall be: You're going to notice a few changes here and there. Mainly, some time lengths got swapped around, we added a 'case-by-case' section, and also incorporate bans that are less than 12 hours. The point of this is not only the aforementioned, but also to restructure the actual '3 strikes, you're out' process we have here. From now on, we're going to handle bans a bit differently as a whole, including leading up to an eventual perm. So, let's dive into it: Time-out bans / Cool-down bans: Any ban length that is less than 12 hours. These bans will not count against somebody's 'record', and are meant to sort of serve as a period of time for a player to chill out for a bit. Sometimes 5 minutes works, and sometimes a bit longer is needed to get the point across. The equivalent to this is how sometimes we will issue a warning to an admin prior to issuing an official strike. These will typically be (but not limited to) handed out on a real-time basis in the servers. There will be situations where someone will be issued multiple cool-down bans without the admin knowing, and at that point just make an increase request. This is not saying that someone can't get multiple cool-down bans, but that it really shouldn't be continuously used if the point is not getting across. Ban #1 & Ban #2: 12 hours to 7 days. These should fall typically closer to lower-end of the spectrum, with the first offense being inside of the windows listed in the table above, and the second just being somewhere @ 7 days or less, depending on severity. Ban #3: 2 weeks to one month. If it is the same offense committed three times, this should be one month. If it's different crap, fall somewhere along the two week line. Ban #4: Three months, regardless of same or different offenses. Ban #5: 6 months, and we will stop saying 'permed' in these instances, instead simply saying 6 months. Someone who is actually 'permed' will be decided upon by the Board (with the possibility of extending this decision to the IA's) and listed in a Do Not Unban list in the higherup section. These will be a bit more uncommon. Extreme offenses, such as doxxing, DoS threats, harassment, sexual harassment, death threats, etc., will be handled on a case-by-case basis. While there are definitely times where these will be permanent, there are also situations that have arisen where we issue something shy of a permanent ban; it's completely dependent on the situation. Additionally, 'alting' on a server after being banned will issue a kick to the player instead of a perm. The point of this is because we may not know if someone is intentionally going to the extent of alting, or is just genuinely confused about why they can't connect to the server. Someone going to the lengths of resetting their IP, changing connection locations, using a VPN, etc., will probably be deemed as intentionally alting and will be bumped up to the next step in the banning process, meaning if they were on ban #3, they will now go to ban #4 for intentionally alting. This will be deemed by the board and / or IA's. Ignoring admins has been moved as well to bans that are less than 12 hours - ie, cooldown bans. While there is merit in the frustration that can occur behind somebody not complying with what you are asking them or telling them as an admin, 'ignoring admins' is a gigantic, catch-all loophole that can be used to circumvent one of the appropriate ban reasons listed above. Instead of taking this away entirely (because of the aforementioned merit), we are just reducing the length of time in which people can be banned for it. If it happens multiple times, it will be addressed - but the point is that people shouldn't be being banned for days on end for 'ignoring admins'. If there isn't a legitimate reason outside of this to ban someone, you should check with an IA, a BD, or just another admin on the legitimacy of the ban itself. The Board fully retains the right to change this process, apply it in a different aspect, or make exceptions when deemed absolutely necessary. While this policy is meant to cover 99% of ban situations, there are going to be people and offenses that will be handled differently due to whatever the unique nature of offense is that may come up. It's a huge change, but ultimately we are hoping to have a tad bit better player-retention by allowing a bit longer of a punishment before going straight to the perms. What this means for players currently permed on a three-strike process (or other): We will need to reevaluate the situation, but they did commit the offenses while the old policy was in place. This will be a case-by-case basis, but anyone may feel free to appeal their ban, regardless of when your appeal date was given (unless you were told not to appeal at all because it is simply 'no'). We will evaluate how they fall into this lineup, but we are not going to go out of our way to unban people who do not appeal. Please let us know if you have any questions.
  9. Hi everyone, There is a long list of crap that the BD's are discussing, which mostly covers major changes as to how we operate as a community. Instead of waiting for us to finish discussing everything, we're just going to push out changes piece by piece as we get to them. Most of us have been pretty busy lately, so it's taking a bit longer to get through everything. Effective immediately: JA's will no longer be required to undergo admin training. We encourage people to reach out to other admins for help, techniques, tips, etc. We also encourage other admins to help out JA's when they see them in the servers. Maybe step back a bit and walk them through how you'd handle a situation in admin chat. This isn't meant to be micromanaging - think 'on the job' training. As always, please reach out if there are ever any questions. There will no longer be a discussion for demotions for JA's who receive a strike within their tenure before becoming SA. While this had good intentions, it is doing us more harm than good because people are afraid to use their powers during that timeframe. JA's will now be held under the same exact system as SA's. After 90 days, just reach out to a BD and we will promote you. There is no discussion that takes will be promoted right away. The point of the 90 day wait is to give some time to gain 'street smarts' with your new powers and abilities and not to go overboard. The jump from JA to SA serves as adding a few more tools in your toolbox. I encourage everyone, of all ranks, to reach out to new JA's during their time and see how they are doing, and if they need any help. There will be no official process for this, but please feel free to reach out and check how people are doing. Additionally, to make it abundantly clear: the goal of a 'punishment' system is not to remove an admin. The entire point of it is trying to fix shit at the lowest possible level that we can. Admin retention is our priority; we're not trying to remove people. Any questions, please reach out and ask.
  10. This is the new info that got pushed out to admins right now. It is kept broad to incorporate freekilling on PB as well. Hey everyone, We've had a policy in place where admins were not allowed to punish other players for breaking rules if they did not see the situation unfold. The CA+ team re-evaluated this policy and determined that it would be in our best interest to change how our admins are able to administrate the servers. From now on, you don't have to witness a situation unfold with your own eyes to give out punishments. If you can determine a rule was broken through investigation you are allowed to punish for it. While we're being a lot more lenient with acting on these situations, you're still being held accountable for making the right decisions so make sure you're confident in your decision before handing out a punishment. We understand that mistakes happen, but we don't want to see it become a repeat issue. Don't go over the top with this change and investigating; your job as admin is to keep the servers fun.
  11. Just sent it out a few hours ago. The original goal we had set among BD’s was $1500, so it’s awesome to see that we doubled it...and then some. Roux, I wish you and yours nothing but the best. While money can’t replace everything, hopefully this helps replace a few things. We understand your need to step down and focus on real life; just know that you will always have a place here as a BD, should you want to come back. Thank you for hard work and dedication here over the past few years. Good luck, buddy.
  12. Hey everyone, I just wanted to speak real quick about the recent bans that took place, our interaction with GFL, and in general our interaction with other communities. We have a thread about this to staff members, but I wanted to just get the entire community on the same page. A long, long time ago, we used to have a mindset of 'if it didn't happen on SG, we can't ban for it'. This existed since I started playing on the servers in 2007, back when it was ZM. I'm not really sure where this line of thinking originated from, but it existed all the way until pretty recently - arguably within the last 5 years or so. This sort of caused a rift between communities, which caused raids, griefing, trolling, etc., even to the point where higher-ups were involved and it was considered fine because it didn't happen on SG. People would get banned from a community and then a raid would ensue. It was taken so seriously that even steam messages would be thrown out and not considered proof. When this mindset changed, it was a huge deal - and occasionally I will see people arguing 'well it didn't happen on SG' regarding a ban about something. While this topic can certainly transcend into a ton of different ban reasons, I am going to keep it strictly about outside communities. To be completely honest, I've never cared much about outside communities in the sense of seeing what they do and how they handle business. This is a fault of my own for several reasons, but after GCC (which was basically a community platform filled with leaders of different communities), I thought it made sense to look a little more into having relationships with members of outside communities. With the ability to reach out to people becoming easier (mainly due to Discord), there are definitely times where community leaders get together, especially to discuss problem members. When I say 'member', I mean members of staff; typically, no one is going to reach out to anyone about some random person connecting, trolling, and getting banned. The issue becomes having people in a position of trust that go off and act like idiots to another community, for a plethora of reasons - but mainly because that's not us, that's not what we represent, and that potentially burns a bridge for us in the future if we ever wanted to collaborate with that community. It goes even further than that - such as if we want a developer, mapper, coder, etc., to make us something specific, but they have ties to a community that we acted like assholes to. Now, this is not saying that I'm going to let another community dictate how we handle business, and we're not going to try and dictate how another community handles business; that's not what this is about. This is where our relationship with SNG went sour, as they came out and demanded that we demote Dominic. I refused to do that, and we were actually not allowed to be a part of GCC at first because of that. But I will always, 100% of the time sit down with other communities if they want to discuss members that are griefing or causing problems. This is also not saying that if you get permed somewhere else, it's a perm here (that actually got brought up at the GCC meetings - a perm at one community being a perm at all communities), or vice-versa. It is mainly used for more extreme situations like intentional griefing, poaching, advertising, etc., where the person doing the alleged actions is in a somewhat higher up role at a community...and mind you, what a 'higher-up' is considered at one community, may not be the same at another community. I can tell you that most owners and community leaders do not support poaching members, myself included. There's obviously a line with that - I don't consider poaching reaching out to a friend or two and seeing if they'd like to try out another community. What I do consider poaching, is intentionally reaching out to people of SG, giving them perks for signing up for a competing server, intentionally inciting drama among us, and then advertising said community on our own servers. To be very straight-forward: GFL was the community in particular, in this situation. Unfortunately, it was involving two of our previous higher-ups (Dominic & Zayne), who both seemingly left SG on a good note. I know it's kinda been tossed around as 'hush-hush', but I don't really think it needs to be. I want to be up front that the board, IA's, myself, or SG as a whole have absolutely no ill-will towards GFL or any of their people. We do not condone, nor will we tolerate any dumb crap to try and grief their community. We have already reached out to GFL and explained the situation with the proof we have - what happens next is up to them, but we are actually using this situation as a reminder that we'd love to partner up with them on inter-community events in the future. One of the other accusations being thrown around by Dominic during this is that we were forcing members to resign from their roles here if they were over at GFL as admins, which isn't true. A long time ago, a few members were banned and they formed another community. These members were friends with a higher up, and there were accusations thrown around about stealing server files, because the server they opened mimic'd one of SG's initially. This is where we came into the rule of being a higher-up at two communities being a no-go, simply because it's a conflict of interest. 'Higher-up' used to just mean AO, but obviously that fluctuates a little bit as we change ranks and responsibilities around a little bit. After a discussion, we found it to be a conflict of interest having a CA who is directly involved in a particular server's development being in close communication with someone creating the same server at another community - to the point where it was said "I was just going to help kickstart their server." Obviously, this is blatantly a conflict of interest. No one, however, is forcing anyone to do anything; users are free to make that choice on their own. In the past, we have had a few people who were higher ups resign and go start their own community or go to another established community, and there were no issues (such as b0red with b0red gaming - perfect example of how to do it)...this situation was not done professionally at all, however. So, just to reiterate: community leaders are in contact with each other. Someone knows someone somewhere, and if they don't, it doesn't take much to find that info and reach out. I get that sometimes people go in and fuck around, but if you are holding a position of trust / responsibility, you are directly representing SG, tag or not. If there are any questions, please feel free to reach out to myself or another Board member.
  13. Huge thanks to Liam, Nishok, Fantastic, and the rest of the tech guys who stayed up forever making this transition happen. You guys are the best.