Show Posts
1
Parliament | Suggestions / Re: Discussion on Issues With /fly
« on: 1 February 2024, 12:15:33 PM »
I just saw this thread and wanted to give my opinion as one of the people that wrote the permissions list for legacy staff and as a member of legacy staff.
The intention of legacy staff, from my point of view, was to encourage staff members to leave staff if they were no longer active. In my experience, there were many staff members that were either no longer passionate about helping develop or improve the server or were too busy with life to continue to be an effective staff member. These staff members were sticking around on staff because they had grown accustomed to building with fly and creative. I wanted to give an avenue for staff members to leave that were only staying on for those quality of life things. The intention was to create more room on staff for people that were passionate and able to serve the players.
I understand the frustration seeing staff build with creative and fly. That was part of the reason why I tried to get the creative world (which I apparently did not set up in a way that is conducive to building or aesthetics) up and running. I wanted to let people build and play around there in an area where it was harder to abuse these permissions.
I personally gave out fly pretty liberally to almost anyone who asked when I was staff, to the point that I was scolded many times. I understand the benefits of fly and it certainly does make building easier. While I would love for players to more frequently have access to fly, there are a few reasons this is hard to accomplish in an effective way.
1. Players, unlike staff, are not accustomed to enforcing server rules and are more likely to abuse fly. This is a bit of an assumption on my part, but previous staff members that are in legacy staff have been staff and have been tasked with enforcing rules. Yes, we can still have cases of abuse within staff, but in general it's much less likely that staff or ex-staff exploit or abuse permissions.
2. I feel that it would be hard to monitor. When I give out fly to someone, I know who I'm giving it out to and how long I've given it out for. It's something that has to be done manually, by a staff member, and thus it creates accountability for that staff member. If a player abuses their fly that a staffer gave them, staff can hold that player and the staff member accountable and ensure that fly is only given to trustworthy players that will be less likely to abuse it. If players just had access, there is nothing stopping them from abusing it in PVP, the end, or any other host of problems that it could create.
3. I am unsure whether it would be clear in the logs, should we need to review them, if a player was abusing fly. To my knowledge, the only log that is created when using fly is the initial command to turn it on. There are many ways that players could do shady things with fly that would be hard to track, and staff might have a hard time ensuring players aren't abusing fly.
I think a good solution, should we choose to change how fly is given out, would be to create an application of sorts to receive fly in a given region for a given amount of time. Personally, this seems easy enough to track and enforce; just make a Google form like we do with moderation logs where staff need to track who has been given a fly region and for how long they are receiving it. Make them review a set of rules that staff could write and agree to them, and if they break any of the rules, punish them accordingly.
I personally have no issue extending fly to players more frequently. I also love the idea of standardizing rules, as it eliminates a lot of this sentiment that staff are playing favorites or are being unfair with who they give perms to.
I am against giving creative to players in most cases. It is very easy to abuse, both as staff and as a player. It concerns me that staff are selling ex-staff and current staff villages that were clearly built with creative, because as pointed out in the above discussion, many expensive blocks can be used when building in creative that would otherwise be more difficult to obtain. I'm not sure what the solution is here, but I think it's quite a bad idea to give unsupervised players creative. If the masses want to change the way creative is used by staff, I'd love to hear suggestions and solutions to the perceived unfairness.
Tldr: my recommendation is more or less in line with what Ako said, but region based instead of player based.
The intention of legacy staff, from my point of view, was to encourage staff members to leave staff if they were no longer active. In my experience, there were many staff members that were either no longer passionate about helping develop or improve the server or were too busy with life to continue to be an effective staff member. These staff members were sticking around on staff because they had grown accustomed to building with fly and creative. I wanted to give an avenue for staff members to leave that were only staying on for those quality of life things. The intention was to create more room on staff for people that were passionate and able to serve the players.
I understand the frustration seeing staff build with creative and fly. That was part of the reason why I tried to get the creative world (which I apparently did not set up in a way that is conducive to building or aesthetics) up and running. I wanted to let people build and play around there in an area where it was harder to abuse these permissions.
I personally gave out fly pretty liberally to almost anyone who asked when I was staff, to the point that I was scolded many times. I understand the benefits of fly and it certainly does make building easier. While I would love for players to more frequently have access to fly, there are a few reasons this is hard to accomplish in an effective way.
1. Players, unlike staff, are not accustomed to enforcing server rules and are more likely to abuse fly. This is a bit of an assumption on my part, but previous staff members that are in legacy staff have been staff and have been tasked with enforcing rules. Yes, we can still have cases of abuse within staff, but in general it's much less likely that staff or ex-staff exploit or abuse permissions.
2. I feel that it would be hard to monitor. When I give out fly to someone, I know who I'm giving it out to and how long I've given it out for. It's something that has to be done manually, by a staff member, and thus it creates accountability for that staff member. If a player abuses their fly that a staffer gave them, staff can hold that player and the staff member accountable and ensure that fly is only given to trustworthy players that will be less likely to abuse it. If players just had access, there is nothing stopping them from abusing it in PVP, the end, or any other host of problems that it could create.
3. I am unsure whether it would be clear in the logs, should we need to review them, if a player was abusing fly. To my knowledge, the only log that is created when using fly is the initial command to turn it on. There are many ways that players could do shady things with fly that would be hard to track, and staff might have a hard time ensuring players aren't abusing fly.
I think a good solution, should we choose to change how fly is given out, would be to create an application of sorts to receive fly in a given region for a given amount of time. Personally, this seems easy enough to track and enforce; just make a Google form like we do with moderation logs where staff need to track who has been given a fly region and for how long they are receiving it. Make them review a set of rules that staff could write and agree to them, and if they break any of the rules, punish them accordingly.
I personally have no issue extending fly to players more frequently. I also love the idea of standardizing rules, as it eliminates a lot of this sentiment that staff are playing favorites or are being unfair with who they give perms to.
I am against giving creative to players in most cases. It is very easy to abuse, both as staff and as a player. It concerns me that staff are selling ex-staff and current staff villages that were clearly built with creative, because as pointed out in the above discussion, many expensive blocks can be used when building in creative that would otherwise be more difficult to obtain. I'm not sure what the solution is here, but I think it's quite a bad idea to give unsupervised players creative. If the masses want to change the way creative is used by staff, I'd love to hear suggestions and solutions to the perceived unfairness.
Tldr: my recommendation is more or less in line with what Ako said, but region based instead of player based.
.
)