Irc Policy & Guideline Issues

[dm-horus]

Since OPU is growing and IRC use is going up, the strain on the ops to resolve issues and then explain themselves in forum flame wars later is growing. Recently some ops and Leviathan have explained that soon an IRC policy will be drawn out and posted in the wiki for all to read and abide by. While it would be nice to have "fire and forget" link to throw at someone when they complain, I think it will be raising more issues than it will solve. But before I go any further...

First a quote from a recent article I read:

As an IRC user for eight years, here's the formula I have found to be the only one that actually works:

    * Everyone who is considered a “regular” by the other regulars gets ops
    * The standard of behaviour on the channel is determined by the rough consensus of whoever happens to be there at the time
    * Ops are required not to get into stupid kick/ban wars with each other

You get fewer problems with this model than most others. Few real trouble-makers have the patience to sit around and interact levelly with a group long enough to be considered a part of it. Even the occasional idiot doesn't cause problems for long, and anyway, the alternative is creating a bureaucracy.

It also means that there's almost always someone around to deal with the passing dickheads who plague IRC. Channels with rigid ops structures almost always have far too few of them to cover the whole day, leaving those poor regulars stuck in the down-time to be the victim of whoever feels like being annoying1.

Here's the counter-intuitive part: having a clear command structure and defined rules creates more conflict than not having them. People, instead of dealing with problems between each other, take them to the arbitrating body. People don't compromise when they can ask the command structure for a black and white decision.

When the strict rules and command structure go away, people have no recourse but to settle their differences one way or another.

Sometimes, that settlement can't be made, and the group forks. This is a good thing. The alternative would be either one side of the argument being disenfranchised anyway, or worse, the group staying together because they are “accepting the judge's decision”, but festering dislike, resentment and backstabbing.

1 back when I was an IRCop, this was one of my pet peeves. I would be asked to ‘babysit’ a channel that was op-less and being harrassed, but the channel owner would refuse to add any more ops because it was ‘against policy’. I would quickly stop going to the aid of such channels.

I think this article spells out my issues with having an IRC policy and rules.

Firstly, the creation of a policy would require the input of all OPU members for it to be fair. Furthermore very few people would agree to abide by such rules if this wasnt the case. Everyone is going to want their say and nearly everyone would find something they demand be changed. The creation of the policy would be an endless debate. Cutting off debate and posting the rules as final would infuriate many members and would cause two things, those being; most members would have a sour taste in their mouths and may harbor ill will toward those who outlined the rules, some may backstab and undermine authority farther down the road due to them having felt "backstabbed" by the rule makers and even worse, some users may up and leave OPU altogether. The lesser of the worst case scenario would be that the community would split. Naturally, if someone couldnt do what they want on the channels the policy is administered, they would simply create a new channel and any who seek to escape the rules would join. The community would splinter into those for and those against. This amounts to a civil war and I doubt anything more could be developed within OPU since anyone useful to us has a 50/50 chance of hating our side. Also, new users would be confused and possibly driven off when they join only to meet a barrage of "Whose side are you on, man?" Having to pick a side when they thought they were joining a unified community would be detrimental to our cause and in the end the community would suffer and ultimately disband due to the weight of the social problems. The forums would fill with flame wars and nothing would get done. Considering this only deals with the creation process of the policy, judging by that alone should cause us all to seriously question whether there should be a formal IRC policy.

Secondly (not considering my first point), administering IRC would become more difficult some time after the creation of the policy. Ive seen many instances where a user gets a warning and wants to "read this so-called policy" because they feel they are being arbitrarily scolded; a formal policy would make the ops job much easier by pointing the offending user toward it and saying something to the effect "those are the rules, my hands are tied." While this might solve the initial issue, most users would say "I dont remember agreeing to that" or simply might not agree with it being enforced on them in that situation. This brings up the issue of arbitration. Who is the judge? If someone feels the ops arent being fair or are corrupt, who makes the final judgement call in the issue? Who keeps the ops in check? If a user loses faith in one op they undoubtedly would not trust another and any judgement against their favor would make it appear that the ops are simply protecting eachother and are not being unbiased.

A formal policy suggests that the IRC community is a courtroom where issues are debated, evidence is weighted and final judgement is given only after long, verbose discussion involving both parties and a neutral arbiter to preside and ensure fairness. Unfortunately, IRC is NOT a courtroom - it is a community. More like a commune than anything else. The people who are present make the rules. We cannot expect to have an open community where everyone feels they are treated fair and have a concrete set of rules that ops can point to at their discretion. If anything the policy would bring about more corruption as an op could be flexible up to a point but then drop the hammer and say "policy" to get their way. If an op had a bad day and doesnt want to deal with it, they could claim policy to shut the person up whereas normally they would simply deal with the problem and everyone moves on.

Third, the policy would never be finalized. The thread could be closed and the rule makers could say its final, but it would undoubtedly be discussed to no end. Only after anyone with a disagreement left the community and everyone still around forgot would the subject die. Even if this happened the forum threads would still be there and the community would be that much worse off for it. The forum would become nothing more than a flame bank for months after rule inception and the scars it would leave on the community would be lasting. Instigating an IRC policy this late in the life of OPU will be detrimental to its properly functioning as a community of participation. There is no doubt in my mind that any attempt to impliment this would either fail, destroy the community outright or at the very least garner negative elements within it that would linger.

I think that instead of a formal policy, the ops should take a greater role in their position. Ops work together and based upon all those present, make a judgement call. No bothering with PMs to other ops or making a poll for consensus. Ops should be firm in their position and all users should be aware that taking the problem to another op at a later time or making a forum thread on it will only get a negative response. Users should not tolerate those who want "their vote" in whether or not an ops judgement was fair. Involving others in a problem which was originally between them and the ops should never be tolerated and refusing to join someone's side should be the right of every user to be upheld. Anyone breaking this right should receive a greater judgement as making a private matter the community's problem isnt fair to anyone. We should make it known that the community takes this position and if something must be written up, make it a 'formal policy' that policy is dictated by those on the channel. If 90% of people on a chan think someone is annoying and should be banned, they will be banned. Aside from basic IRC rules like language and flooding, I dont think anything more should be made concrete or else there will be endless fighting and amendments. Rules are not up to interpretation so if the judgement is made by those within the community and only upon the opinions of the majority and those present, there will be little an offender can complain about or debate on.

Should the above be ignored or skipped over, in the very least I think the issue of creating formal IRC Policies should be discussed well before any thought be given to writing them up. Furthermore, finding a good policy somewhere else and copy & pasting it on OPU would be a big mistake to anyone who mightve thought it would be a quick way to solve the issue. We all need to discuss this and I think everyone needs to have their say ahead of time.

What do you think? (Please no flaming, this needs to be constructive.)

[Leviathan]

To your first point I dont think there is any chanch at all in any split because of a policy officialy being put up to view. We have allways had rules on our channel but we have never felt that strongly about puting them up to view. The main rule being use common sence (we would not change our policy now that we are planing to have it up for viewing) and we have allways had a fine channel cept a few small problems here and there. We have never felt much of a need for real administration or having at least one op there for 24 hour administration. We are a small community and our channel's are small. If people would like more administration by having at least one op there most of the time then say so.

Also I have been/am in a few channels where the regulars get ops and this does work.

We will allways have a unified community and wont do any thing to cause a split. Only members of the community could possibly try to. We would not allow to have any major split and confusion caused for members new and current.

Oh yea the the creation of a policy would does not require the input of all OPU members. We would/have come up with it and we beleive it to be fair for all.

Now to read the second paragraph.

Ok for 'who makes the final judgement call in the issue' I would say like everything in the community it comes down to the people runing things. Like Leeor said, admins/mods are there for a reason. As allways everything is open to discussion.

Ok yes IRC is not a courtroom - it is a community, and thats allways how it has been ran and we have never had big problems. I think most people know what is aspectable and know that it is prity free and open. And what is not wanted in the main channel is fine in the lobby channel.

Ok and to that paragraph there would sure would not become some big flame war about policy or whatevea. Im just convinced that it would not happen. You have some big fears here Horus and it seams in your mind that anything could tip the community over the edge and that its hanging by a thread, this is just not true, im sure others agree.

And yes we dont want anything bad to happen to cause problems such as arguments on the forums etc which clearly cause negative effects for some time and take time to wear off.

As for 'There is no doubt in my mind that any attempt to impliment this would either fail, destroy the community outright or at the very least garner negative elements within it that would linger.'. We allready have a policy which has been there since day one, its not been online to all to view mind you because we have never felt that it was needed. The policy is not strict or strong, its use common sence and dont break quakenet rules.

I do agree on 'making a forum thread on it will only get a negative response' and thankfully as ive said we have never had many problems so this has never realy happened. Sept just once (the Moogle ban)?

'If 90% of people on a chan think someone is annoying and should be banned, they will be banned.' Also i do like thks idea of what most people think, the people should indeed decide if someone is out of line or not. But baning is not the only option, is it the last resort.

Personaly i think your probly puting too much thought into this (its taken me 45mins to read and reply to this). The rulesp/policy allready exists, and most people have not had problems using our channels. If anyone wants to put any suggestions of what should be and should not be in rules etc then go for it.

And thanks for your input Horus

[gamerscd0]

Hay this isnt cool i dont agree with this :

If 90% of people on a chan think someone is annoying and should be banned, they will be banned

i think this isnt cool because i am anoying in general it is me but i try not to aim it at people so this is what i think.

[CK9]

Wow, what a pesamistic, almost depressing, view on things...I have to agree with lev.

[spirit1flyer]

I don't think that something like Irc problems is going to split the comunity, I mean look at the last major problem we had, It did its damage but people came back, Sure we lost a few but if they like the game they will be back someday, there is still a small group who are waiting for their chance to fix what was done.  But my point is if we can stand during major mod and admin problems, a little thing like Irc and a few people getting mad about it, Should not do much damage at all.

If 90% of people on a chan think someone is annoying and should be banned, they will be banned

and lev were did you come up with that?  that is crazy

spirit

[plymoth45]

I have to agree with lev on this as well. Little problems on IRC regaurding rules might someday be a problem, but it isn't likely anytime soon unless we get a hoard of trouble makers. It might lead to flaming someday, but that isn't likely either. If this community can take the blows of the xfir incident, then a little thing like IRC isn't going to split this community, at least not perminantly.

[lordly_dragon]

after reading both post carefully...and before saying my opinion let me say something clear. from my point of view witch is different than older member (i mean not in age but.. in time in the community) i am part of the the post-xfir generation and about it.. i dont know what happen and i dont want to know... one thing is sure the basic feeling in the forum/irc is not what lev claim to be. it is NOT united at 100% there is still tension sometimes.

now this is what i think about that... horus you got the strange tendency to press the panick button... easily..and honest man.. dont do so as mutch as you do because to my point of view this is like a power tug of war that you try to break in... I may be wrong tho. graphicly it would done something like that H= horus L= lev M= me  pessimistic--H-----------M-------------L optimistic about the current situation. as i said before the community is not all white nor all black.

leviathan in all your opinion post there is always a part that is always saying i am against arguing. honest arguing is how the whole world work. why stop it in general the people know where is the limit beetween a good argument and something more offending. for me a good chat channel or forum is where there is concrete arguing that is constructive and polite.

oh and could someone explain to me why in the bloody hell did the admin decide to write the unwriten rule that everyone respected fairly. everytime i was on irc it was always clean and good to hang around just explain this to me. the community lies on a good structure so why should we write those rule because there will be problem this i am sure witch bring me to this point: i think that in general the admin team are using too mutch there power. if you want the community to be going well I think that the role of the admin would be more like manager let us a little looser than you are doing now. by writing those rule i think you are proving us again who have the real power and this i must admit i totally hate that.

in short words : dont change anything at all. horus stop creating such post. leviathan open your eyes for a second. general admin release your grip over the community a little bit let us breath

[Mez]

There is nopoint in having rules. because when an op break them, some non ops whine about it.  The general rule that i use when opping, is that if someone has twice asked another member to shut up for whatever reason (normally because they are annoying them) i kick em simple.  If they piss me off (it takes slot) i tell em that they r, they continue i kick them.

After that the banning begins, and i work out that if they time comes
You don't need set rules ( i use anti racisim but again id tell the other person 2 shut up first before kicking em) and the anti swearing if its a kiddies/ family channel.


Does anyone else think that my 'personal' way of opping is fair?

 

[lordly_dragon]

There is nopoint in having rules. because when an op break them, some non ops whine about it.  The general rule that i use when opping, is that if someone has twice asked another member to shut up for whatever reason (normally because they are annoying them) i kick em simple.  If they piss me off (it takes slot) i tell em that they r, they continue i kick them.

After that the banning begins, and i work out that if they time comes
You don't need set rules ( i use anti racisim but again id tell the other person 2 shut up first before kicking em) and the anti swearing if its a kiddies/ family channel.


Does anyone else think that my 'personal' way of opping is fair?

i didnt see you mutch on irc but this tend to be a good way to op. but, it is always a judgment that people do and judgment is never anonymous. you gotta be there to see what really happen. but i think that you are honest and fair so i would say YES this is a good way to admin

[BlackBox]

I'll stand by Lev and the other admins/mods on this one.

** before I start, don't take anything personally. some of the stuff I say in the rest of this post might sound like I'm throwing blows at people. But I want to get these points across to everyone. **

Again, this is not a popularity contest. In every community or society (online or in real life) the final say is down to the administration. We have to make the final judgment call on everything. You might ask why? Well, we have a site and irc channels to maintain. We put immense amounts of time into keeping all of OPU running and can't afford the extra time to deal with these sorts of problems just because some people don't want someone banned or a topic locked.

I don't want any of this to sound like we don't care about people's input. Because that would be false to say that. If someone wants to know WHY someone was banned, I have no problem telling them why.
However, I and the rest of the admins/mods will stand by our decisions.

As for an admin/mod's actions, I don't see why there's any need to question it. We don't ban people or lock topics for no reason or because we think it's "fun". (No, I find doing that one of the least 'fun' things I can do here). I don't feel that we should have to answer to people who aren't even present when the incidents occur.

Just like Lev said, we haven't had a written set of rules for IRC, just because it hasn't been necessary. The few rules that we do enforce are pretty common sense.

(Case in point: Yesterday, someone on IRC (I won't mention any name) had their alternate nick similar to one of the op's names (so it appeared that they might be trying to impersonate that op). They claimed it was their client, that they didn't mean to do that, but I wondered why would they have changed their nick to such a name in the first place (the client does not randomly choose ops to impersonate for the alternate nick). Either way, I informed them that they are violating the rules when they do that, and they seemed to be so surprised that a rule against impersonation really exists).

That rule should have seemed like common sense. Go in any other IRC channel and try to do that. You'll probably be banned right away.
Do it in real life, for example, impersonate someone else on some gov't form or something else, and you might end up in deep crap if they find out.

Likewise, it's pretty hard to defend yourself when you're filling the channel with loads of repeated text ("Because I was never told it was wrong") but then complain about how much spam fills your inbox everyday.

Now back to the rules again. Certainly at first glance it sounds like a good idea to let everyone decide on it. But, in reality, that doesn't work so well. People try to bend the rules to their own satisfaction. There has to be some sort of ultimate authority, a standard to base the rules off of.
In our case, that's the people who run the site. (The admins/mods).

You don't have to agree with our rules. Life is not fair, and it never will be. I think if anyone is creating a 'split', it's us by arguing this issue.

I'm going to lock this topic before it turns into a full scale flame war.

[Leviathan]

and im going to open it so Horus can reply..

hehe

spirit1flyer u cant of read all of Horus's post, he wrote that not me.

lordly_dragon the rules are common sence so we have never felt the needed to inform ppl that they agree to our admining of irc when they enter. i agree u should not feel that there are admins watching over ur every move but i dont think its evea been like that nor will it be.

[spirit1flyer]

sorry Lev I missed that in Horus's post
But next time when your quoting someone in your post add the Quote tag please  <_<
because I saw that in your post  

and Lev you should be working with Hacker not against him  

I'm going to lock this topic before it turns into a full scale flame war.

[Leviathan]

i am, were working hard on reunion update!

[BlackBox]

Never mind my locking it.. that was probably a bit harsh.

I just don't want it to degrade into a flame war.. keep it constructive, like Horus said.

[dm-horus]

My goal was to say something that would get people talking because I think it needs to be discussed. I made it pessimistic and depressing on purpose. I didnt want to offend anyone or step on anyones toes, but doing so just a little bit tends to get people motivated to speak up.

Although I did notice that some people are taking this VERY personally as if i was attacking them or singling them out, which i wasnt. The only way this would turn into a flame war is if the people replying make it that way. What I said isnt inciting or baiting anything. Some replies to this thread make it seem like I was assaulting them or their point of view. I dont see how that could be the case; nothing i said is attacking anyone or any point of view. Above all, keep calm and keep this a constructive thread.

Anyway, I had to get that out.

The point of all this is to get the opinions of those who speak the loudest out in the open. Since hearing about the policy from lev, I had an uncomfortable feeling that I couldnt place. Its the worst case scenario that was bothering me. What IF the worst happened? I noticed that nobody was questioning whether or not their should be a policy, and this bothered me. Not because the idea is bad but because I think such a step should be discussed, and it wasnt. Despite what you mightve read in the post, I do want a policy for all the same reasons you do but I often learn after the fact that I should have made more considerations in the beginning. I think the questions I posed will help us make a more well rounded policy that will be equitable to a broader range of situations. At the very least we will go into this aware of how serious some of us see this issue. I do think the policy will be a success and I think there is about a half of 1% chance of the community splintering or breaking up as described in my post.

But I think its fair to make everyone aware of what could happen.
I think its fair to get everyones opinions out in the open so when Leviathan or whoever writes up the policy, they do so aware of how people feel about it. That was the purpose of what I wrote. I dont like arguments, in fact I hate them. However I do think that to an extent what we discussed here so far will only help us in making the policy. That was what I was hoping would come of this. Now we are a little bit wiser of the views of some of the active members and that is the vital input I thought we might have been missing. I realize my wording was a bit alarmist but I thought it was necessary to come across that way to get people motivated to speak up. I think in that regard it worked.

So please, dont be offended by what I said. The goal was to have more than a poll. More than simply "I agree" or "I disagree." I thought we needed to have something with a bit more depth. I wasnt trying to hit the fire alarm or lure people out of the woodwork. This seems to be constructive so far and I hope that what was discussed here will help us. Im on you guys' side, dont forget that. I probably put too much thought into this, but I did so for the good of the community and I think that should be everyones job.

[Leviathan]

I agree Horus that like all things we need input on it, it should be discussed.

And I think most people would agree we need rules on the main channel.

[Freeza-CII]

Well as far as I see it things are find.  Rules do need to be posted and made VERY VISIBLE to EVERY ONE.  I am just tired of every one asking for the rules over such a thing as impersonation or cloning.  There needs to be a General Set of base rules that all chans should follow except the Lobby.  And then the Extention to the rules for each other chan.  But with all that aside.  

Flame wars are going to happen there is no stopping them and trying to stop them is like trying to stop a volcano all you can do is deal with them.

The OPS being question about there action from the other users is a bit annoying because really would a server admin explain himself for removing a bad file that you liked.   The Truth of the fact is that IRC is not a Democracy.  Its more of a Senate of the Channel OPS that basicly try to keep order in the Channel.  Now this can be abused of couse but what cant.

As for the suggestion for how the channel should be run.  If mass people are going to be give OP power you are looking at a bad situation with all the kicks and banning.  This is why most other networks have that Half OP where you can only +V.   To avoid the all the kicks and banning the OPS should remain as they are.  And the more regular people get the +V or who ever wants it really its nothing special.

But on a personal note I see these threads about how thing need to be and it usually boils down to us OPs.  It Just make me feel like we arent trusted or dont want to be trusted.

[Hooman]

Firstly, the creation of a policy would require the input of all OPU members for it to be fair. Furthermore very few people would agree to abide by such rules if this wasnt the case.

First claim I think is false. One person is perfectly capable of creating a fair set of rules. It strikes me as unlikely that someone would create an unfair set of rules. Besides, such a simple matter shouldn't require a load of work from a committee of people trying to write down and formalize them.

The second claim I also think is false. If the rules are fair people tend to abide by them. Especially if they're created and enforced by only one person, since they know there won't be any arguing about them. I've seen a number of highly successful sites with this type of system. If there's any trouble, they don't waste time debating about it. The trouble makers are removed and life goes on. People don't need or generally don't want to be bothered with this stuff.

Besides, the internet is well designed for places with absolute power in one person's hands (or few people). Whoever can pull the plug on whatever server is in use has absolute power. There is nothing anyone else can do about that. Trying to make everything into some sort of democracy can be cumbersome. Besides, democracy isn't the be-all end-all form of government. It has weaknesses like any other. They are slow to make decisions, waste resources (and people's time, since the same can be done with fewer people) and doesn't always lead to the right decision. The right decision isn't always the popular one. Like that part about being banned if 90% of the people think you're annoying. It shouldn't be a popularity contest. You just need someone to stand up for what's right, and not allow for abuse by the majority.


Much of the rest of what you said just sounded a little too paranoid and I'm not too worried about it. (And you don't seem to be either   ). Besides, it was long and I've already forgotten most of it by now.  
 

[dm-horus]

lol sweet

[lordly_dragon]

and im going to open it so Horus can reply..

hehe

spirit1flyer u cant of read all of Horus's post, he wrote that not me.

lordly_dragon the rules are common sence so we have never felt the needed to inform ppl that they agree to our admining of irc when they enter. i agree u should not feel that there are admins watching over ur every move but i dont think its evea been like that nor will it be.

i know they are common sence and thats why you should not bother writing them... if a member break those rule we can actually say that this guy is either trully immature or have nothing to do in both case i am 100% with the admin. you dont have to write them down ppl are bright enough i think in our community. op2 do a natural selection by itself .

hmmm... after a whole day of thinking... i have come with 2 simple rule that could be a guide line to people with a brain and maturity.

1st: the respect: every discussion every topic should be bond by respect and friendship

2nd appropriate talk in the appropriate channel/sub forum: every channel on irc got his goal same goes for the forum.

those two rule i think dont even need to be devloped they got a wide aray and englobe the common sence. my final recomendation would be to do the less number of rulez and keep them laaarge dont be too specific.
 

[Freeza-CII]

Some people dont want to be friends with others and its not possible to always be friendly.  Some people are just button pushers and good at it.

It is human nature for there to be conflict.

[HaXtOr]

Some people dont want to be friends with others and its not possible to always be friendly.

People may not want to be friends but they should at least have some sensibility and be respectful anyway

It is human nature for there to be conflict.

you just gave me an idea

              Outpost Universe Human Nature Conflict
                                      [size=8] flame wars[/size]


we could make it a foum game where the opbjective is to flame out your oponet but gain respect from the admins and the community  :-p

Note: This was a joke dont take my idea seriously!!!

[Freeza-CII]

please no more joking

To gain respect you have to gain the respect of others.

[thablkpanda]

I, and my highly respectable, but never recieving such respect, opinion, agree that Horus has the right damn idea.

That doesn't mean his application is ingenious though. I'm utterly appaled by the actions of some Ops in some situations. However they were  chosen for their jobs, and I supposedly should have respect for them, and what they do.

That is sickening. Of course most of the time, these same people are incredibly decent, and almost likable. I've never had a problem personally with anyone in this community. I'm fortunate enough to be either a likable person, or just so intolerable that you guys just live with it.

Back to the matter at hand.

Rules are grand ideas. But the famous dead guy quote that goes here is, "Rules were meant to be broken" and that's the damn truth. We expect the eventuality, and hence create the rules. Common sense is a great idea, but doesn't work, because most of you don't have it. You can pretend pretty damn well though.

History shows us that absolute power corrupts absolutely. I'm unconcerned with the well being of the leaders of this community, so my focus is the individuals being run. If you split power enough ways, then nobody really has power. And that's the way to be. OP'ing everyone in our channel is a s*** idea on paper, but when you implement it, it'll work fine.

Don't take this to extremes and truly OP everyone, my position is, that if someone thinks they can do a decent job as OP or Moderator, and they've shown significant intelligence (in this case, an IQ above 40) then let them do it for god's sake. Someone can surely watch and make sure they don't ban the channel- be my guest. But regular people, like Sirbomber, myself, Stormy, Eddy (damn, especially eddy), and MANY others. We're almost always in the channel, and we're actively speaking. That looks damn good to prospective members too, if they see  the channel operators taking part in discussions, just being normal people, god knows that'd not only raise morale and help making decisions easier, but... oh, those were my only two points...

I don't think most people remember this far back, but I remember when ZZJ and Freeza were crowned. I mean OP'ed. That- for me, meant something serious. Normal people, in charge. ZZJ was a TRULY active member of the society, and Freeza runs his mouth whenever he has time. And that's nice, whatever, but OPs don't stay active. ZZJ dropped out of the spectrum, and now rarely shows up at nighttime for me (another issue for me to address the next time I hit enter) or if you call his name.

I'm hitting enter.

We're all in different timezones. s***, Levi's in Europe. ZZJ's in Texas, Freeza used to be in Alaska, moved to North or South Dakota if I'm not a terribly mistaken moron, and Hacker's always in school. Mez, I don't think anyone knows where Mez is from (just kidding man). My point being that when I show up at 5:30 EST, Lev should be asleep. Or if I log on at 8:12 EST, ZZJ and Freeza should be sleeping. More OPs means more coverage, which leads to fewer incidents. We need people to switch out shifts, instead of relying upon this one, however decent, force to patrol our channels.

I'd like to comment on hacker, someone I very much like as a person- but your recent comment about locking this thread took me overboard. That is completely unnecessary. You, and a moderator like you, constantly lock topics that have even the slightest chance of offending someone's uncle's mother's brother. It's friendly debate around here, except when people get out of hand- which rarely happens. Just roll with it. Take some advice from someone that sorts out much more chaos than you do in a day. People are going to argue, why not let them get out their feelings, and get it over with.

Lordly_dragon, your views are restatements of people before you, with just a tad bit more insanity. I can't recall just now exactly what you said, but I'm sure it made me think enough to make me remember to write about this. That is all.

Oh, I've got a grammar issue to dissolve with you people, on another day perhaps, and before another audience.

My few thousand cents.

Mr. Merchant
Merchant Enterprises
Merchant Electric
Law Offices of Merchant and Merchant (coming soon)


EDIT: Had to add my final clause

[size=8]My views stated in the above paragraphs, (hereby refered to as "the preceeding"), are the views of my individual, and not of the companies owned nor operated by one Christopher D. Merchant, (hereby refered to as "the writer"), and should not distort or change one's opinion of the writer nor his businesses. This disclaimer has full legal standing, and is subject to change at any time without prior notice to the viewees- the population of one - "Outpost-Universe.net Forums". This is not to be redistributed without the permission of the writer. The legality of this disclaimer is to be a per annum. All fines waived.[/size]

[Freeza-CII]

Or if I log on at 8:12 EST, ZZJ and Freeza should be sleeping.

if that is PM i wont be sleeping at 6:00 in the evening.  If its am youll hardly ever see me at 6 am.  Mostly because that is 2 hours after i go to sleep lol.
For the number of people we have no the number of Ops is fine.  Hacker is on every day but sunday.  You can find me on most of the time.  ZZJ seems to come and go randomly through out the day and Levi is on a BNC so you can never really tell when he is there or not lol.  Mez usually shows up in the morning for my time. and Hooman is one that seems to come and go when ever.

There really isnt a need to have a rotating ops because of the amount of activity at some of these times.  Even more so the Dead Zone that exsists then its late night (USA) and Early morning (Europe).

If you split power enough ways, then nobody really has power.

There is a split of power  Levi and hacker are more of the Web people.  I just host the bot and lend a hand if i can help and i try to resolve some issuses that come up.  ZZJ is the same except he has more coding knowledge then me and he doesnt host the bot.  Hooman is the OP2 Code god and messes with the code when ever.  Mez I dont know much about him but from what i have seen he is a good OP.  Punboy is a op but only because he HOSTS the site so its more of a Glorified position.

Now this thing about the Locking Thread you have to realize that we dont want flame wars some times its better to cut it off early then to let it go out then lock it.  Like in some other threads.  Flame wars will just go on and on and there is no need for them on the forum people need to handle such things in a PM on irc or some IMprogram.  Plus with the recent aggervation of moogle and the posts of freeing moogle.  People questioning the decision of the ops all the time is aggervating as well.  Just kinda on edge about some things recently.