Best Posts in Thread: Explain this to me

Ill explain it since Im in an explaining mood.

Kling asked the community for his own knowledge. Us admins never asked as we set it public to make us more accountable for our bans. We were banning for reasons like "Come back in 10 minutes". When we looked for why they were banned, we had no idea. SO we set it public to get rid of this and force ourselves to put more thought into the ban as many would criticize it.

The bans are between the staff and that player. This server is not a crappy new server that needs the public to laugh at others bans. Its childish. We are above that. We had planned on making it private again since the day we made it public. Ill use this example for the 3rd time this week.

You have an electrician at your house and its a boss (30 years experience), and 3 helpers working with him for the summer. The 3 kids say "lets just run it through here! Easier!!" The boss knows its easier but its not the right way to do it. Should he do a poor job because majority voted? Or should he use the experience and responsibilities entrusted in him to say, "no, thats not the way to do it. Were doing it this way".
Its flawed logic to always use majority.

As much as I took your opinions into account and saw the staggering numbers that wanted to leave it public, I must make the hard choice to go against it for the betterment of the server.

Hope you understand.

 

Maybe because the no crowd made legitimate arguments with valid points.

The yes crowd said "lul it entertains me"

 

The poll offered no real insight to the reasons for the overall decision. Speaking from a perspective that had view of both sides, it caused nothing but issues. Yes, it may have been entertaining for you, and it was argued the community had matured, I must disagree about that overall, as here's an example of what it was like anytime a staff member was simply doing their job:
In addition, it started numerous discussions that had to be shut down relatively quickly due to the sheer immaturity of arguments about the simplest of kicks.

It's simply a lot easier to keep the privacy between the player and staff, as well as keep the general immaturity under control more.

 

"Public bans and kicks are now private." Kling posted this on the thread here. And I don't understand it. The poll showed a 50 to 11 vote, with 8 not bothered. I'm not troubled because I wanted them public, that's fine. But, I just don't understand how a vast majority of the community shows they want something, then you go against their wishes? On the thread, Kling also says, "know this was made to inform the staff team on how the community feels about the change whether its mainly positive or negative." So the staff team were informed on our opinion, but don't really care about it? Sounds a little messed up if you ask me.

I know the server isn't exactly famous for listening to the community, but I feel like this crosses the line. You can't make a poll saying you would like to hear from the community, then not care. If it was a lot closer, I would understand, but the results were overwhelming. Out of the 69 who voted, 50 wanted something, and 8 were either way, but you still go and do what the minority of 11 says? 11 people. That is just over a fifth of the majority. This shows me that the poll meant nothing, which is contrary to what Kling said.

If it is easier for staff to have private bans, then that is 100% fine. I don't mind them being private if that's what the staff team want. I respect their wishes and if they prefer something one way that is perfectly okay. But why do a poll, say "We would like the community to display their views and opinion on the matter. Make sure to select a choice on the poll and all feedback is taken into consideration," and then ignore the majority. I know it doesn't state that what the poll says is going to happen, but when results like these are painfully obvious, it really seems like nothing was taken into consideration. We weren't even given an answer on why they are private now, which is the least you could do. It just baffles me on how little a say the community seems to have.

And before you go and say "You have no idea what goes on in staff", then why not tell us. I would truly like to see the decision making that goes on to consider a 72.5% opinion to not matter.

Notice: This isn't aimed directly at Kling, just the staff team in general. And I still respect all your choices, I would just like this to be explained to me. Thank you.​

 

That imagine is exactly why I decided that public bans were almost worthless. Not entirely sure why it got changed back.

 

There is only a few select areas on the server where the concept of majority rules actually apply. It's a bit odd to assume the intent of a thread seeking community opinion and nowhere in that post did it even imply majority rules would be applied there.

Applying a standard majority rules on this server is not a good idea because players aren't and shouldn't be focused on the good of the server with every decision. Their role is to consume the product and enjoy themselves and speak to what would make them enjoy themselves more. It's the staff's role to weigh further player enjoyment with possible consequences of action. This is exactly what they did here as they considered the entertainment of players to not outweigh the various negative aspects of public/private bans.

I disagree that anyone deserves to know anything about another person when they are not affected. There is already precedent of private talking with a staff if in a situation where it does affect you. IE: I'm buying a rank, does this person scam | I'm going to promote person to <position> is there anything in his/her background that would put anything at risk? Bans are not considered private as a whole because when you appeal it's there publicly and being read by everyone.

But most importantly - Treating all customers, regardless, with respect is simply a good business decision. Privacy is generally one of basic standards of said respect.