The Future of Fish Tank
b4ndito, Tue Jul 31 2012, 06:49AMThe future of Fish Tank CC
Leadership of clan activities, administration of server, and liaison to clan interactions will be delegated to three people, who will be voted in by official clan proposal. These three people will choose server administrators, promote the clan in every facet of imagination, and will have the final say in punishments/reviews of bans that are handed out to players.
The three Lead Admins will determine those clan members who are most deserving of being a server administrator by presence in the server, responsibility, and involvement in different facets of the community. Server administration is on a probationary timeline; new admins must earn permanence. Their adherence to admin protocol and their ability to show levelheadedness and maturity in spite of some level of power will determine their longevity as server admins. After the candidate has shown these, he will be given a higher level of admin ability.
All of this will be done by a vote between the three “Lead Adminsâ€. Two-person majority wins. All discussions will remain private to the Lead Admins, there will be no tolerance of pandering or pestering or begging.
I have discussed this with Glitch. Him, myself, and Skittles are willing to work together to function as the Lead Admins to Fish Tank Classic. We want to know that the community backs us. I believe we have shown a nearly flawless track record of dedication and respect to the server and community. Given the approval of the community, we want to work directly with Knightrider and Alcosatz to maintain and run an efficient and popular server. On top of that, we want to work with Emerican, Rusty, Amped, and AngryToasters to maintain our connection with surf and gungame. We aim to tighten and strengthen the community under our guidance and leadership.
Re: The Future of Fish Tank
Night_Ninja, Tue Jul 31 2012, 07:58AM
This is well written and I support it. Thanks for putting in the time to make the community stronger.
Night_Ninja, Tue Jul 31 2012, 07:58AM
This is well written and I support it. Thanks for putting in the time to make the community stronger.
Re: The Future of Fish Tank
doctorphate, Tue Jul 31 2012, 11:18AM
Shenanigans, No way a mexican wrote something that well. I didn't see one Es-eh in there.
Sounds good though.
doctorphate, Tue Jul 31 2012, 11:18AM
Shenanigans, No way a mexican wrote something that well. I didn't see one Es-eh in there.
Sounds good though.
Re: The Future of Fish Tank
V3cT0rMan, Tue Jul 31 2012, 02:37PM
100% backed
V3cT0rMan, Tue Jul 31 2012, 02:37PM
100% backed
Re: The Future of Fish Tank
emerican, Tue Jul 31 2012, 03:06PM
emerican, Tue Jul 31 2012, 03:06PM
V3cT0rMan wrote ...
100% backed
100% backed
Re: The Future of Fish Tank
Arbitrage, Tue Jul 31 2012, 06:57PM
Perfect.
Arbitrage, Tue Jul 31 2012, 06:57PM
Perfect.
Re: The Future of Fish Tank
alcosatz, Tue Jul 31 2012, 07:37PM
When I skimmed this thread over breakfast, I assumed that because it's in the Fish Tank Classic forum that it's for FT Classic only. Then I noticed that you said "The Future of Fish Tank CC" (Community Clan, right?). I also see the phrases "leadership of clan activities" and "official clan proposal" which makes me think that you're talking about much more than FT Classic.
But then I see this (emphasis mine):
That makes me think you're only talking about FT Classic again. This last bit could go either way:
Why have all of the replies to this post been supportive? I can't be the only one who finds much of the language in this post ambiguous.
alcosatz, Tue Jul 31 2012, 07:37PM
b4ndito wrote ...
The future of Fish Tank CC
Leadership of clan activities, administration of server, and liaison to clan interactions will be delegated to three people, who will be voted in by official clan proposal. These three people will choose server administrators, promote the clan in every facet of imagination, and will have the final say in punishments/reviews of bans that are handed out to players.
The future of Fish Tank CC
Leadership of clan activities, administration of server, and liaison to clan interactions will be delegated to three people, who will be voted in by official clan proposal. These three people will choose server administrators, promote the clan in every facet of imagination, and will have the final say in punishments/reviews of bans that are handed out to players.
When I skimmed this thread over breakfast, I assumed that because it's in the Fish Tank Classic forum that it's for FT Classic only. Then I noticed that you said "The Future of Fish Tank CC" (Community Clan, right?). I also see the phrases "leadership of clan activities" and "official clan proposal" which makes me think that you're talking about much more than FT Classic.
But then I see this (emphasis mine):
b4ndito wrote ...
I have discussed this with Glitch. Him, myself, and Skittles are willing to work together to function as the Lead Admins to Fish Tank Classic. We want to know that the community backs us. I believe we have shown a nearly flawless track record of dedication and respect to the server and community. Given the approval of the community, we want to work directly with Knightrider and Alcosatz to maintain and run an efficient and popular server.
I have discussed this with Glitch. Him, myself, and Skittles are willing to work together to function as the Lead Admins to Fish Tank Classic. We want to know that the community backs us. I believe we have shown a nearly flawless track record of dedication and respect to the server and community. Given the approval of the community, we want to work directly with Knightrider and Alcosatz to maintain and run an efficient and popular server.
That makes me think you're only talking about FT Classic again. This last bit could go either way:
b4ndito wrote ...
On top of that, we want to work with Emerican, Rusty, Amped, and AngryToasters to maintain our connection with surf and gungame. We aim to tighten and strengthen the community under our guidance and leadership.
On top of that, we want to work with Emerican, Rusty, Amped, and AngryToasters to maintain our connection with surf and gungame. We aim to tighten and strengthen the community under our guidance and leadership.
Why have all of the replies to this post been supportive? I can't be the only one who finds much of the language in this post ambiguous.
Re: The Future of Fish Tank
b4ndito, Tue Jul 31 2012, 08:28PM
Yeah Alex I definitely could have shaped that up better.
The goal is simply to maintain Fish Tank Classic in a manner that strengthens that server, brings more people into the community, as well as bridges FTC with the other servers. As FTC is our most popular and recognizable server, I want it to be so successful that it brings people into the forums and the other Fish Tank servers.
I hope that makes it a little less ambiguous.
b4ndito, Tue Jul 31 2012, 08:28PM
Yeah Alex I definitely could have shaped that up better.
The goal is simply to maintain Fish Tank Classic in a manner that strengthens that server, brings more people into the community, as well as bridges FTC with the other servers. As FTC is our most popular and recognizable server, I want it to be so successful that it brings people into the forums and the other Fish Tank servers.
I hope that makes it a little less ambiguous.
Re: The Future of Fish Tank
alcosatz, Tue Jul 31 2012, 08:47PM
Ok, thanks. I'm not trying to bust your balls--just trying to make sure that I understand what's happening.
What was that stuff about an official clan proposal? What would we be voting on, specifically?
alcosatz, Tue Jul 31 2012, 08:47PM
b4ndito wrote ...
Yeah Alex I definitely could have shaped that up better.
The goal is simply to maintain Fish Tank Classic in a manner that strengthens that server, brings more people into the community, as well as bridges FTC with the other servers. As FTC is our most popular and recognizable server, I want it to be so successful that it brings people into the forums and the other Fish Tank servers.
I hope that makes it a little less ambiguous.
Yeah Alex I definitely could have shaped that up better.
The goal is simply to maintain Fish Tank Classic in a manner that strengthens that server, brings more people into the community, as well as bridges FTC with the other servers. As FTC is our most popular and recognizable server, I want it to be so successful that it brings people into the forums and the other Fish Tank servers.
I hope that makes it a little less ambiguous.
Ok, thanks. I'm not trying to bust your balls--just trying to make sure that I understand what's happening.
What was that stuff about an official clan proposal? What would we be voting on, specifically?
Re: The Future of Fish Tank
b4ndito, Wed Aug 01 2012, 12:31AM
I hardly think it would be fair for the three of us to just take control because we felt like it or did it before someone else. We want to know that the clan supports this idea and supports us. Its the clan's decision for us to be given this role.
b4ndito, Wed Aug 01 2012, 12:31AM
alcosatz wrote ...
What was that stuff about an official clan proposal? What would we be voting on, specifically?
What was that stuff about an official clan proposal? What would we be voting on, specifically?
I hardly think it would be fair for the three of us to just take control because we felt like it or did it before someone else. We want to know that the clan supports this idea and supports us. Its the clan's decision for us to be given this role.
Re: The Future of Fish Tank
emerican, Wed Aug 01 2012, 01:23AM
I feel like this is a decision that's left up to Alex and Knight to make, since it is their server that they own. That's just my opinion though
emerican, Wed Aug 01 2012, 01:23AM
b4ndito wrote ...
I hardly think it would be fair for the three of us to just take control because we felt like it or did it before someone else. We want to know that the clan supports this idea and supports us. Its the clan's decision for us to be given this role.
alcosatz wrote ...
What was that stuff about an official clan proposal? What would we be voting on, specifically?
What was that stuff about an official clan proposal? What would we be voting on, specifically?
I hardly think it would be fair for the three of us to just take control because we felt like it or did it before someone else. We want to know that the clan supports this idea and supports us. Its the clan's decision for us to be given this role.
I feel like this is a decision that's left up to Alex and Knight to make, since it is their server that they own. That's just my opinion though
Re: The Future of Fish Tank
b4ndito, Wed Aug 01 2012, 01:27AM
Fair point, Emer. I'll argue though: it's their server, but they instituted as a part of this clan, so it represents all of us.
b4ndito, Wed Aug 01 2012, 01:27AM
Fair point, Emer. I'll argue though: it's their server, but they instituted as a part of this clan, so it represents all of us.
Re: The Future of Fish Tank
gLiTch, Wed Aug 01 2012, 01:47AM
I had mentioned to Bandito that this would be like an unofficial vote....to get everyone's input and hear any objections.
gLiTch, Wed Aug 01 2012, 01:47AM
I had mentioned to Bandito that this would be like an unofficial vote....to get everyone's input and hear any objections.
Re: The Future of Fish Tank
peacebypeice, Wed Aug 01 2012, 01:57AM
peacebypeice, Wed Aug 01 2012, 01:57AM
emerican wrote ...
I feel like this is a decision that's left up to Alex and Knight to make, since it is their server that they own. That's just my opinion though
I agree they should have a say in it, but I would also like the rest of the community to be behind. We value Alex and Mark's opinions a great deal, but it is about time to get this thing moving rather than just talking about it.b4ndito wrote ...
I hardly think it would be fair for the three of us to just take control because we felt like it or did it before someone else. We want to know that the clan supports this idea and supports us. Its the clan's decision for us to be given this role.
alcosatz wrote ...
What was that stuff about an official clan proposal? What would we be voting on, specifically?
What was that stuff about an official clan proposal? What would we be voting on, specifically?
I hardly think it would be fair for the three of us to just take control because we felt like it or did it before someone else. We want to know that the clan supports this idea and supports us. Its the clan's decision for us to be given this role.
I feel like this is a decision that's left up to Alex and Knight to make, since it is their server that they own. That's just my opinion though
Re: The Future of Fish Tank
alcosatz, Wed Aug 01 2012, 03:04AM
You're acting a little cagey over this. I've handled this with kid gloves so far, and I've got no outstanding issues with you, but come on... wouldn't be fair to take control? I'm curious to see just how, exactly, you would take control.
According to the FT Constitution, Bill of Rights, or whatever it's being called these days:
Source: -[link]-
Even if these servers were officially FT (which they're not, see below) you can't "take control." Being a control freak myself, I am confident in saying this.
Thanks for bringing some sanity to this discussion, but it should be clarified as this: these are Knightrider's office servers (Source and GO). We all know that I'm very stubborn (this response is proof) but I report to him at the end of the day.
See the constitutional section quoted above, and also check out this:
Source: -[link]-
I remember seeing an annoying chatbox post from nostie weeks ago about how the office server should have "FT" or "Fish Tank" or something similar in the title. Too lazy to dig up the actual quote from nostie, but Knight and I have NOT put "FT" or "Fish Tank" in the name of the office servers for this reason. We were actually trying to follow the Constitution/Bill of Rights/9th grade civic class/etc rules before these servers were officially FT!
I would certainly like to see them go through the official voting process, and I suppose the Source server could go through it now. The GO server needs to be tested some first, but I would like to turn it over to the public just as soon as I iron out one plugin that I've been working on.
There's nothing wrong with consensus building, and I think collaborative work is great, but this doesn't sound right. It sounds like you're trying to distance yourself from b4ndito's original comments.
At risk of sounding psychotic by referring to myself in the third-person, Mark and Alex are, no shit, working on it. We're not just talking about it. You have been more party to a group of people "just talking about it" than me, as far as I know.
So... damage control: I love and respect all of you. Please don't do stuff like this again or you'll drive me even crazier than I already am.
alcosatz, Wed Aug 01 2012, 03:04AM
b4ndito wrote ...
I hardly think it would be fair for the three of us to just take control because we felt like it or did it before someone else. We want to know that the clan supports this idea and supports us. Its the clan's decision for us to be given this role.
alcosatz wrote ...
What was that stuff about an official clan proposal? What would we be voting on, specifically?
What was that stuff about an official clan proposal? What would we be voting on, specifically?
I hardly think it would be fair for the three of us to just take control because we felt like it or did it before someone else. We want to know that the clan supports this idea and supports us. Its the clan's decision for us to be given this role.
You're acting a little cagey over this. I've handled this with kid gloves so far, and I've got no outstanding issues with you, but come on... wouldn't be fair to take control? I'm curious to see just how, exactly, you would take control.
According to the FT Constitution, Bill of Rights, or whatever it's being called these days:
VII. A proposal cannot be made requesting changes to any FT server's operation, admin list, mapcycle, etc... That is beyond the scope of the clan. Server operation is up to server owners and operators. Proposals that deal with the above aforementioned will be declared invalid and closed by moderators. Thread will be moved accordingly.
Source: -[link]-
Even if these servers were officially FT (which they're not, see below) you can't "take control." Being a control freak myself, I am confident in saying this.
emerican wrote ...
I feel like this is a decision that's left up to Alex and Knight to make, since it is their server that they own. That's just my opinion though
I feel like this is a decision that's left up to Alex and Knight to make, since it is their server that they own. That's just my opinion though
Thanks for bringing some sanity to this discussion, but it should be clarified as this: these are Knightrider's office servers (Source and GO). We all know that I'm very stubborn (this response is proof) but I report to him at the end of the day.
b4ndito wrote ...
Fair point, Emer. I'll argue though: it's their server, but they instituted as a part of this clan, so it represents all of us.
Fair point, Emer. I'll argue though: it's their server, but they instituted as a part of this clan, so it represents all of us.
See the constitutional section quoted above, and also check out this:
IX. Any new server that is run by an [FT] member and wishes for it to be associated/affiliated/inducted into the [FT] clan and community should be taken to a Vote and decided upon by the clan. If the server is accepted by way of a successful simple majority (more yes votes than no votes), the server should have the words 'Fish Tank' in the name/title as a recognition of the server's affiliation with the clan/community.
Source: -[link]-
I remember seeing an annoying chatbox post from nostie weeks ago about how the office server should have "FT" or "Fish Tank" or something similar in the title. Too lazy to dig up the actual quote from nostie, but Knight and I have NOT put "FT" or "Fish Tank" in the name of the office servers for this reason. We were actually trying to follow the Constitution/Bill of Rights/9th grade civic class/etc rules before these servers were officially FT!
I would certainly like to see them go through the official voting process, and I suppose the Source server could go through it now. The GO server needs to be tested some first, but I would like to turn it over to the public just as soon as I iron out one plugin that I've been working on.
gLiTch wrote ...
I had mentioned to Bandito that this would be like an unofficial vote....to get everyone's input and hear any objections.
I had mentioned to Bandito that this would be like an unofficial vote....to get everyone's input and hear any objections.
There's nothing wrong with consensus building, and I think collaborative work is great, but this doesn't sound right. It sounds like you're trying to distance yourself from b4ndito's original comments.
peacebypeice wrote ...
I agree they should have a say in it, but I would also like the rest of the community to be behind. We value Alex and Mark's opinions a great deal, but it is about time to get this thing moving rather than just talking about it.
I agree they should have a say in it, but I would also like the rest of the community to be behind. We value Alex and Mark's opinions a great deal, but it is about time to get this thing moving rather than just talking about it.
At risk of sounding psychotic by referring to myself in the third-person, Mark and Alex are, no shit, working on it. We're not just talking about it. You have been more party to a group of people "just talking about it" than me, as far as I know.
So... damage control: I love and respect all of you. Please don't do stuff like this again or you'll drive me even crazier than I already am.
Re: The Future of Fish Tank
peacebypeice, Wed Aug 01 2012, 03:49AM
peacebypeice wrote ...
I agree they should have a say in it, but I would also like the rest of the community to be behind. We value Alex and Mark's opinions a great deal, but it is about time to get this thing moving rather than just talking about it.
At risk of sounding psychotic by referring to myself in the third-person, Mark and Alex are, no shit, working on it. We're not just talking about it. You have been more party to a group of people "just talking about it" than me, as far as I know.
I'm sorry that came off as if I were calling you out Alex and Mark. After rereading my post I realize how that was read rather than intended. I did not mean to sound like Alex and Mark were "just talking about it" and not doing anything about it. Knight's post was essentially calling for action in looking for people to stand up and take some responsibilities. We are just trying to get the ball rolling on that side of things. This is nothing official but more, as you said, consensus building. I agree that this does need to go through the system that has been built. Sorry that came out so mucked up.
peacebypeice, Wed Aug 01 2012, 03:49AM
peacebypeice wrote ...
I agree they should have a say in it, but I would also like the rest of the community to be behind. We value Alex and Mark's opinions a great deal, but it is about time to get this thing moving rather than just talking about it.
At risk of sounding psychotic by referring to myself in the third-person, Mark and Alex are, no shit, working on it. We're not just talking about it. You have been more party to a group of people "just talking about it" than me, as far as I know.
I'm sorry that came off as if I were calling you out Alex and Mark. After rereading my post I realize how that was read rather than intended. I did not mean to sound like Alex and Mark were "just talking about it" and not doing anything about it. Knight's post was essentially calling for action in looking for people to stand up and take some responsibilities. We are just trying to get the ball rolling on that side of things. This is nothing official but more, as you said, consensus building. I agree that this does need to go through the system that has been built. Sorry that came out so mucked up.
Re: The Future of Fish Tank
gLiTch, Wed Aug 01 2012, 05:27AM
I hate politics...
Kind of figured that the whole "Fish Tank" servers would be "grandfathered in" simply because that is what this clan is about. I think it would be rather stupid to have to vote in our DEFAULT server(s). That rule was meant for future servers such as another zombie server, or new CSGO gameplay server.
My idea of an "unofficial vote" was to see what peoples opinions were regarding clan leadership. Not an election of any sorts which is what i said to Bandito in the private message. He may have just misread it. My goal was to see if everyone was ok with particular leadership roles so that WE, the 3 amigos, can speak to Knight about moving this forward. Knight, and im also pretty sure you as well, do not want this responsibility as you are putting your efforts into this actual server. This i am very appreciative for since i rather have nobody else working on it than you two.
According to the rules, only server OPs can determine admin list.
So that is what this thread is for. This is not a vote/proposal therefore it is not breaking any rules which is why i have not closed it.
Piece on the other hand i know meant no disrespect and i got his point upon reading it. He wants to get this ball rolling as do i and im sure many others. We want tight and uniform leadership roles so we can get things together for CSGO. The game releases in exactly 3 weeks.
Weeks ago you said to me in Office that you would like to see me take more of an initiative with leadership. I have been and im doing so again. I am trying to sort shit out to the best of my abilities within my delegated powers. I do not like to step on any toes nor do i want to.
If nobody objects to this new form of leadership, and Knightrider also does not object to this leadership, then he can OFFICIALLY without a vote change our status to "Head Admin/Server Operator" or whatever (not necessarily meaning server op technical shit) and than we can legitimately pick admin lists and change policies.
gLiTch, Wed Aug 01 2012, 05:27AM
I hate politics...
Kind of figured that the whole "Fish Tank" servers would be "grandfathered in" simply because that is what this clan is about. I think it would be rather stupid to have to vote in our DEFAULT server(s). That rule was meant for future servers such as another zombie server, or new CSGO gameplay server.
My idea of an "unofficial vote" was to see what peoples opinions were regarding clan leadership. Not an election of any sorts which is what i said to Bandito in the private message. He may have just misread it. My goal was to see if everyone was ok with particular leadership roles so that WE, the 3 amigos, can speak to Knight about moving this forward. Knight, and im also pretty sure you as well, do not want this responsibility as you are putting your efforts into this actual server. This i am very appreciative for since i rather have nobody else working on it than you two.
According to the rules, only server OPs can determine admin list.
So that is what this thread is for. This is not a vote/proposal therefore it is not breaking any rules which is why i have not closed it.
Piece on the other hand i know meant no disrespect and i got his point upon reading it. He wants to get this ball rolling as do i and im sure many others. We want tight and uniform leadership roles so we can get things together for CSGO. The game releases in exactly 3 weeks.
Weeks ago you said to me in Office that you would like to see me take more of an initiative with leadership. I have been and im doing so again. I am trying to sort shit out to the best of my abilities within my delegated powers. I do not like to step on any toes nor do i want to.
If nobody objects to this new form of leadership, and Knightrider also does not object to this leadership, then he can OFFICIALLY without a vote change our status to "Head Admin/Server Operator" or whatever (not necessarily meaning server op technical shit) and than we can legitimately pick admin lists and change policies.
Re: The Future of Fish Tank
alcosatz, Wed Aug 01 2012, 05:39AM
No harm done, sir. I wasn't trying to make you guys feel bad about yourselves (well, maybe just a little). I applaud you and your cohorts for trying to get shit done.
Consensus building is good stuff, but my advice is to first talk to Knightrider about anything involving FT Classic. He let's me run with server operation stuff, but we have a pretty good channel of communication. My understanding is that any significant decisions concerning FT Classic should be cleared by him.
alcosatz, Wed Aug 01 2012, 05:39AM
peacebypeice wrote ...
I'm sorry that came off as if I were calling you out Alex and Mark. After rereading my post I realize how that was read rather than intended. I did not mean to sound like Alex and Mark were "just talking about it" and not doing anything about it. Knight's post was essentially calling for action in looking for people to stand up and take some responsibilities. We are just trying to get the ball rolling on that side of things. This is nothing official but more, as you said, consensus building. I agree that this does need to go through the system that has been built. Sorry that came out so mucked up.
I'm sorry that came off as if I were calling you out Alex and Mark. After rereading my post I realize how that was read rather than intended. I did not mean to sound like Alex and Mark were "just talking about it" and not doing anything about it. Knight's post was essentially calling for action in looking for people to stand up and take some responsibilities. We are just trying to get the ball rolling on that side of things. This is nothing official but more, as you said, consensus building. I agree that this does need to go through the system that has been built. Sorry that came out so mucked up.
No harm done, sir. I wasn't trying to make you guys feel bad about yourselves (well, maybe just a little). I applaud you and your cohorts for trying to get shit done.
Consensus building is good stuff, but my advice is to first talk to Knightrider about anything involving FT Classic. He let's me run with server operation stuff, but we have a pretty good channel of communication. My understanding is that any significant decisions concerning FT Classic should be cleared by him.
Re: The Future of Fish Tank
alcosatz, Wed Aug 01 2012, 06:38AM
Pardon the DP...
I figured the office servers would be voted in according to the constitution. Bending rules is OK with me, but the assumption that they will be broken and not even discussed? Kinda sucks, man.
An unofficial vote for FTCC in the FT Classic forum? Seems messy to me.
If we're talking about the FT constitution, then yeah, I believe that I already pointed that out. Thanks for confirming.
Right, I never said this was a vote or proposal because that would be ridiculous if it occurred in the FT Classic forum. What was hinted at in b4ndito's post was that a vote or proposal would occur based on the content of his initial post. I have no clue what you three Amigos intended FTCC to vote on, but I guess I'm a dick for asking?
This is understood, and from what Jesus/Steel told me earlier today, the public beta should be out very soon.
Did I? Demo or it didn't happen!
Seriously, I don't remember that at all. I suggest that you deal with Knightrider from this point on.
Definitely--let Knightrider sort it out.
alcosatz, Wed Aug 01 2012, 06:38AM
Pardon the DP...
gLiTch wrote ...
Kind of figured that the whole "Fish Tank" servers would be "grandfathered in" simply because that is what this clan is about. I think it would be rather stupid to have to vote in our DEFAULT server(s). That rule was meant for future servers such as another zombie server, or new CSGO gameplay server.
Kind of figured that the whole "Fish Tank" servers would be "grandfathered in" simply because that is what this clan is about. I think it would be rather stupid to have to vote in our DEFAULT server(s). That rule was meant for future servers such as another zombie server, or new CSGO gameplay server.
I figured the office servers would be voted in according to the constitution. Bending rules is OK with me, but the assumption that they will be broken and not even discussed? Kinda sucks, man.
gLiTch wrote ...
My idea of an "unofficial vote" was to see what peoples opinions were regarding clan leadership. Not an election of any sorts which is what i said to Bandito in the private message. He may have just misread it. My goal was to see if everyone was ok with particular leadership roles so that WE, the 3 amigos, can speak to Knight about moving this forward. Knight, and im also pretty sure you as well, do not want this responsibility as you are putting your efforts into this actual server. This i am very appreciative for since i rather have nobody else working on it than you two.
My idea of an "unofficial vote" was to see what peoples opinions were regarding clan leadership. Not an election of any sorts which is what i said to Bandito in the private message. He may have just misread it. My goal was to see if everyone was ok with particular leadership roles so that WE, the 3 amigos, can speak to Knight about moving this forward. Knight, and im also pretty sure you as well, do not want this responsibility as you are putting your efforts into this actual server. This i am very appreciative for since i rather have nobody else working on it than you two.
An unofficial vote for FTCC in the FT Classic forum? Seems messy to me.
gLiTch wrote ...
According to the rules, only server OPs can determine admin list.
According to the rules, only server OPs can determine admin list.
If we're talking about the FT constitution, then yeah, I believe that I already pointed that out. Thanks for confirming.
gLiTch wrote ...
So that is what this thread is for. This is not a vote/proposal therefore it is not breaking any rules which is why i have not closed it.
So that is what this thread is for. This is not a vote/proposal therefore it is not breaking any rules which is why i have not closed it.
Right, I never said this was a vote or proposal because that would be ridiculous if it occurred in the FT Classic forum. What was hinted at in b4ndito's post was that a vote or proposal would occur based on the content of his initial post. I have no clue what you three Amigos intended FTCC to vote on, but I guess I'm a dick for asking?
gLiTch wrote ...
Piece on the other hand i know meant no disrespect and i got his point upon reading it. He wants to get this ball rolling as do i and im sure many others. We want tight and uniform leadership roles so we can get things together for CSGO. The game releases in exactly 3 weeks.
Piece on the other hand i know meant no disrespect and i got his point upon reading it. He wants to get this ball rolling as do i and im sure many others. We want tight and uniform leadership roles so we can get things together for CSGO. The game releases in exactly 3 weeks.
This is understood, and from what Jesus/Steel told me earlier today, the public beta should be out very soon.
gLiTch wrote ...
Weeks ago you said to me in Office that you would like to see me take more of an initiative with leadership. I have been and im doing so again. I am trying to sort shit out to the best of my abilities within my delegated powers. I do not like to step on any toes nor do i want to.
Weeks ago you said to me in Office that you would like to see me take more of an initiative with leadership. I have been and im doing so again. I am trying to sort shit out to the best of my abilities within my delegated powers. I do not like to step on any toes nor do i want to.
Did I? Demo or it didn't happen!
Seriously, I don't remember that at all. I suggest that you deal with Knightrider from this point on.
gLiTch wrote ...
If nobody objects to this new form of leadership, and Knightrider also does not object to this leadership, then he can OFFICIALLY without a vote change our status to "Head Admin/Server Operator" or whatever (not necessarily meaning server op technical shit) and than we can legitimately pick admin lists and change policies.
If nobody objects to this new form of leadership, and Knightrider also does not object to this leadership, then he can OFFICIALLY without a vote change our status to "Head Admin/Server Operator" or whatever (not necessarily meaning server op technical shit) and than we can legitimately pick admin lists and change policies.
Definitely--let Knightrider sort it out.
Re: The Future of Fish Tank
b4ndito, Wed Aug 01 2012, 07:11AM
I'm getting tired of arguing semantics.
Me, Glitch, and Skittles are offering up our time and efforts to maintain and run the admin team and the social side of Fish Tank Classic. I think we'd do very well at it. I expect that the majority of the clan thinks the same.
So, let's not beat around the bush anymore. Is anyone opposed to the three of us taking the lead on this?
b4ndito, Wed Aug 01 2012, 07:11AM
I'm getting tired of arguing semantics.
Me, Glitch, and Skittles are offering up our time and efforts to maintain and run the admin team and the social side of Fish Tank Classic. I think we'd do very well at it. I expect that the majority of the clan thinks the same.
So, let's not beat around the bush anymore. Is anyone opposed to the three of us taking the lead on this?
Re: The Future of Fish Tank
gLiTch, Wed Aug 01 2012, 07:24AM
Alex i do clear everything with Knight before i make any decisions regarding his server. As far as i know, he is ok with the way this is going. If not then he will let me know and we will accommodate
Fixed.
You're not a dick at all. Perfectly reasonable question. We will not be voting on anything.
Agreed and fixed.
gLiTch, Wed Aug 01 2012, 07:24AM
Alex i do clear everything with Knight before i make any decisions regarding his server. As far as i know, he is ok with the way this is going. If not then he will let me know and we will accommodate
Alex wrote ...
An unofficial vote for FTCC in the FT Classic forum? Seems messy to me.
An unofficial vote for FTCC in the FT Classic forum? Seems messy to me.
Fixed.
Alex wrote ...
Right, I never said this was a vote or proposal because that would be ridiculous if it occurred in the FT Classic forum. What was hinted at in b4ndito's post was that a vote or proposal would occur based on the content of his initial post. I have no clue what you three Amigos intended FTCC to vote on, but I guess I'm a dick for asking?
Right, I never said this was a vote or proposal because that would be ridiculous if it occurred in the FT Classic forum. What was hinted at in b4ndito's post was that a vote or proposal would occur based on the content of his initial post. I have no clue what you three Amigos intended FTCC to vote on, but I guess I'm a dick for asking?
You're not a dick at all. Perfectly reasonable question. We will not be voting on anything.
Alex wrote ...
I figured the office servers would be voted in according to the constitution. Bending rules is OK with me, but the assumption that they will be broken and not even discussed? Kinda sucks, man.
I figured the office servers would be voted in according to the constitution. Bending rules is OK with me, but the assumption that they will be broken and not even discussed? Kinda sucks, man.
Agreed and fixed.
Re: The Future of Fish Tank
Knightrider, Wed Aug 01 2012, 01:09PM
What's a little annoying with this is that you guys did NOT clear any of this with me. None of these policies, these threads, etc., were ever cleared with me. Part of being a great administration team is communication and these past couple of days, we definitely have been lacking in the communication department. I am certainly not opposed to you and B4ndito taking the initiative like that, but we didn't even have anything set in stone and I'm fairly certain that I said numerous times that I was going to work on my own policy list and discuss it with you two, but it seems you three have a firm grasp on what you guys want in terms of policy so knock yourselves out.
Fiance's back so your means of communication will strictly have to be by forums, PMs, Facebook messages, whatever you guys can use to get a hold of me. Any form of web browsing means I will be able to take care of anything. I can't say I'm going to be on Steam every day though, as this is fairly obvious by my lack of online time yesterday at all. If you need it, I can even give you my cell phone # and you can shoot me a text. Please do not let this happen again, it has obviously stirred up a lot more than it should have.
Knightrider, Wed Aug 01 2012, 01:09PM
gLiTch wrote ...
Alex i do clear everything with Knight before i make any decisions regarding his server. As far as i know, he is ok with the way this is going. If not then he will let me know and we will accommodate
Alex i do clear everything with Knight before i make any decisions regarding his server. As far as i know, he is ok with the way this is going. If not then he will let me know and we will accommodate
What's a little annoying with this is that you guys did NOT clear any of this with me. None of these policies, these threads, etc., were ever cleared with me. Part of being a great administration team is communication and these past couple of days, we definitely have been lacking in the communication department. I am certainly not opposed to you and B4ndito taking the initiative like that, but we didn't even have anything set in stone and I'm fairly certain that I said numerous times that I was going to work on my own policy list and discuss it with you two, but it seems you three have a firm grasp on what you guys want in terms of policy so knock yourselves out.
Fiance's back so your means of communication will strictly have to be by forums, PMs, Facebook messages, whatever you guys can use to get a hold of me. Any form of web browsing means I will be able to take care of anything. I can't say I'm going to be on Steam every day though, as this is fairly obvious by my lack of online time yesterday at all. If you need it, I can even give you my cell phone # and you can shoot me a text. Please do not let this happen again, it has obviously stirred up a lot more than it should have.
Re: The Future of Fish Tank
b4ndito, Wed Aug 01 2012, 02:35PM
I'll take the blame, it was my decision to jump the gun with this. Obviously I should have done a better job communicating with you guys. Something needs to be taken care of soon though.
Knight, can you PM me your cell # so we can text whenever I can't get hold of you on steam friends or such?
b4ndito, Wed Aug 01 2012, 02:35PM
I'll take the blame, it was my decision to jump the gun with this. Obviously I should have done a better job communicating with you guys. Something needs to be taken care of soon though.
Knight, can you PM me your cell # so we can text whenever I can't get hold of you on steam friends or such?
Re: The Future of Fish Tank
gLiTch, Wed Aug 01 2012, 05:17PM
Could have sworn i had a conversation about this with you Knight... seemed like you were ok with the "3 amigos" idea. The policy thread we did not discuss though.
gLiTch, Wed Aug 01 2012, 05:17PM
Could have sworn i had a conversation about this with you Knight... seemed like you were ok with the "3 amigos" idea. The policy thread we did not discuss though.
Re: The Future of Fish Tank
Knightrider, Wed Aug 01 2012, 05:19PM
Yes, the 3 amigos idea I was alright with, I was talking more about the policies.
Knightrider, Wed Aug 01 2012, 05:19PM
gLiTch wrote ...
Could have sworn i had a conversation about this with you Knight... seemed like you were ok with the "3 amigos" idea. The policy thread we did not discuss though.
Could have sworn i had a conversation about this with you Knight... seemed like you were ok with the "3 amigos" idea. The policy thread we did not discuss though.
Yes, the 3 amigos idea I was alright with, I was talking more about the policies.
Print this page