smoth wrote:Dan: except these discussions never go anywhere all sides state opinions no one budges
Also my observation, but the question is why and how to change that?
BTW: I know this situation from other projects: in a group where an action needs a certain consensus the ppl that want it to stay like it is just need to blockade. To thwart off the danger of "trials of hypothesis" they must intervene already at the discussion stage. this is where FUD or generally mis-information and thread-derail come into play, leading to a state in where the proponents of change give up, because they cannot even come to a decision where a non-dangerous, time-limited trial can be run.
This is very common and moves the proponents of change into a corner where everyone just rolls with the eyes and mentally has already given up on the idea of any change at all.
smoth wrote:and the people who can do the work(like myself) find the constant infighting and dickwagging demotivating
I can imagine that. Now here is the thing: noone tells you to do something except tell those without knowledge (like me) what options and consequences you see. If one of the conclusions would be that there is a solution, but it involves work that no dev/admin wants to do, then that is ofc OK. We can then think of a solution to that (for example look for devs/admin), but we have at least found a (maybe difficult) way.
As an example: if moderation of autohosts were a desired course of action, but lobby mods don't want to do it, then it's prob possible to make a new permission that allows a new admin-team to moderate only autohosts, without giving them the other admin rights. Resulting work would be to create that lobby-permission and find a trusted group of admins.
knorke wrote:dansan wrote:Wow - this is great! Not even the moderators that participated in this thread cared to say or didn't know (?) that THEY actually DO have the power to change things.
<[RoX]knorke> !KICK #main [TERA]DSDHost1
<ChanServ> #main: You do not have permission to kick users from the channel
Uh.. OK... so Andrej was not only funny, but also wrong...
I was getting a little angry there...
I work a lot in self-organizing projects and the thing that makes me really angry is the powerplay of {mis-, withholding} information... I hope I didn't piss anyone off.... still wonder who has that privilege...
knorke wrote:dansan wrote:pls help me in the next days I want to draw an organigram about springrts infra/orga
img tada.
hihi :)
Let's see if I can get some of these "strings" connected
the above wrote:Good starting point would be to just make upping !teamsize require a vote.
That would be a rule in spads/springie, right? That would mean it'd be mod-agnostic and thus would have to be configurable (to not impose rule on other mods.. ah.. games :) Is this right? Bibim / Licho - any of you reading this, and can confirm?
If it'd be configurable, then host-admins could just disable it, and we'd be back to zero... or not?
IMO 8v8 happens on 8v8 hosts because ppl want to play 8v8 - so the !teamsize-vote will go "yes" -> Not sure if it's worth to invest resources into this.