[Rejected] Gentoo's Input

[Gentoo]

I understand this approach and the logistics behind launching the server - which is why I don't think it's the best way of going about things. 

 

Option 1 - Surprise Launch

Server manager and a few helper bees have a very limited set of eyes and mouths and get the server in a running condition. People get on and see it sucks, leave or stick around to write a bunch of input that the managers will be salty about because they've already done a ton of work to get it running or actually take it to heart and have to undo/redo a lot of things that would've been easier if they'd known from the start. I'm not saying managers have to listen to every little whim of the people, but it's more likely that they'll take suggestions rationally if they're paced out and delivered prior/while work is being done.

 

Option 2 - All Hands on Deck

My theory (with a limited amount of experience) is that people are more willing to work on something that they can feel like they're part of rather than critiquing what's already been done. There are a handful of examples at the staff level that you may or may not think apply. Regardless, input delivered here would be taken more appropriately by devs and they'd be more willing to incorporate it into their work. When the server actually launches, it'll be in a much more useable state and the group of people that were able to help with it can act as a rebuilt reg pop rather than having the Dev/Devs pop and forcing CAs to come along, which they may or may not do. The most clear example of this to me is Combat Surf, but I'm sure this can also extend to Minecraft, Squad or other projects in some regards. I'm not super knowledgeable on this but I don't think this approach has been taken often or ever and I think it's worth giving a shot on at least one of the current or future server projects. I genuinely think this will boost the chance of servers being successful by a large margin.

[kabLe]

16 minutes ago, Gentoo said:

I understand this approach and the logistics behind launching the server - which is why I don't think it's the best way of going about things. 

 

Option 1 - Surprise Launch

Server manager and a few helper bees have a very limited set of eyes and mouths and get the server in a running condition. People get on and see it sucks, leave or stick around to write a bunch of input that the managers will be salty about because they've already done a ton of work to get it running or actually take it to heart and have to undo/redo a lot of things that would've been easier if they'd known from the start. I'm not saying managers have to listen to every little whim of the people, but it's more likely that they'll take suggestions rationally if they're paced out and delivered prior/while work is being done.

 

Option 2 - All Hands on Deck

My theory (with a limited amount of experience) is that people are more willing to work on something that they can feel like they're part of rather than critiquing what's already been done. There are a handful of examples at the staff level that you may or may not think apply. Regardless, input delivered here would be taken more appropriately by devs and they'd be more willing to incorporate it into their work. When the server actually launches, it'll be in a much more useable state and the group of people that were able to help with it can act as a rebuilt reg pop rather than having the Dev/Devs pop and forcing CAs to come along, which they may or may not do. The most clear example of this to me is Combat Surf, but I'm sure this can also extend to Minecraft, Squad or other projects in some regards. I'm not super knowledgeable on this but I don't think this approach has been taken often or ever and I think it's worth giving a shot on at least one of the current or future server projects. I genuinely think this will boost the chance of servers being successful by a large margin.

You know what, all fair points. There is no one best way to go about it as I've seen success using both methods in the past. Seeing as we haven't had too much success going with option 1s method, lets try option 2.

 

See 

 

[Gentoo]

1 minute ago, kabLe said:

You know what, all fair points. There is no one best way to go about it as I've seen success using both methods in the past. Seeing as we haven't had too much success going with option 1s method, lets try option 2.

 

See 

 

[Gentoo]

2 hours ago, Hawks said:

If you don't mind I would like to pick your brain about your comment on what you think CA should encompass. Being a former LA I am sure we could relate and brainstorm together on certain aspects of the rank. If you'd like to drop those ideas here or in my dms please do. 

CA has always been in a weird middle-ground position. It seemed to encompass way too much which resulted in most people in the rank doing just about nothing "because there's so much they could be doing". It caused a huge issue with tracking activity and accountability. It's not even really the fault of the CAs most of the time, they usually just want to be working on the servers as an SM or thought they wanted the promotion, only to realize there's a lot of boring grunt work to be done and there isn't always good discussions to be had or big projects to work on.

 

Introducing server reps was a good split in responsibility and offers a more nonsensical path to server work/management, which is why I suggested it lol. The argument before has always been 'if you care about the servers, you should care about the community' tone deaf to how backwards it is coming from people that don't connect to the servers. Obviously people are capable of being passionate or good at certain things and not at others, so this split was long overdue.

 

I think this is how things should have been since the start, but given our particular position, it would be useful to bring more people into a role of discussing important and sometimes sensitive subjects in an official capacity. I don't know if any modification needs made to the rank for this to occur, there is a point to be made that anyone that can't be trusted with CA level perms off the bat wouldn't be very useful in these discussions anyways. Regardless there is an obvious difference between allowing people into a rank to discuss things in an official capacity, in staff threads - away from posturing, and on topics that aren't in the open compared to just saying these people can make threads. Just look at how some of the recent threads have gone. A lot of people get heated and think they're being publicly lambasted, but in reality they're just so controversial or creative takes that it puts people out of their comfort zone. Some of it is coming from a good place, some of it isn't, but it needs to be said and might be more professional and comfortable for everyone if it's in a staff meeting or thread.

 

I'm not sure if you were looking for something more holistic or relevant than this - I'm not an LA so I don't have a good idea of what your CAs are doing, supposed to be doing, or how you're holding them accountable, but what I will say is to make sure you have your own way of keeping track of your teams progress and holding individuals accountable that you are going to take seriously. Make sure you're also constantly pointing people to where their hands can go - a lot of people twiddle their thumbs when they have too many options and nobody tells them what to do.

 

My taco bells getting cold and I don't have to proofread so I'm going to TLDR here and say CAs should be primarily focused on Community related topics - not server topics, with a secondary responsibility of whatever moderation, busy work, or general help other staff members need. There is now two obvious trees for staff progression, server work and community work. If someone isn't participating in discussions in either camp, they shouldn't be more than admin.