The thread assumes that there will be staff on the official server if you read the 1st post. Ofcourse people will discuss about staff. Wtf
1 Like
Accusing us for over-thinking. nice
Calling us entitled and ad hominem. nice. I pay for a premium experience I better get one.
I would do the same if possible. The case here, that you didnât bother reading up about, is official servers with official staff members that officially discriminate, text/verbal abuse, what not.
Sure, you could do this and let Official Servers get completely wiped everytime a new hack bypass comes out. That sounds smart.
Minecraft. Insurgency. Rust. Gmod. Tower Unite. Town of Salem. SCUM. TF2. H&G. All games with community servers, where, you know, admins enforce some rules. Some of these games have official servers with official staff, such as Tower Unite and obvious others.
We block them. Simple fix. Doesnât fix their discrimination or anything, but works.
Yeah that guy seems like a cracc hed
thanks for reporting. wasnât necessary.
Oh btw wanted to say nice example. Never heard of this before and its interesting. thanks.
I was being sarcastic⌠if you can simply block them why did you keep saying we need staff to ban them ASAP? Also why do you call out that guy for âaccussing us of overthinkingâ and âcalling us entitled and ad hominemâ, but then continue to call him a crack-head?
2 Likes
Agenda injected: check
It is not the primary objective of the law to be morally good, the primary objective of the law is to be fair and protect people from the transgression of others. Yes, most of it happens to also be morally right but that is not a prerequiste (nor should/can it be since morals are subjective, the law is not).
1 Like
I thought it was pretty obvious I meant you can block someones voice/text chat if its abusive. However, if someone were hacking, which is beyond the players control, a staff member would need to deal with that ASAP.
Because⌠thats ridiculous? The point of this thread is to think about the topic at hand? We should be thinking and planning?
Did you⌠even read the post?
The guy clearly did not read the post or the comments. he a crac hed
You clearly didnt understand the point of my comment, the point is youâre just a hypocrite. You complain about âad hominemâ, then call him a crack head
Completely unrelated from the comments.
Admins wonât ban you because your a furry.
I think furryâs are a little weird. But as an admin I wouldnât treat you differently because of it. I didnât even realise you were a furry till u said.
whats a fury?
Yeah i should fix that
âPower tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.â - John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton, first Baron Acton (1834â1902)
2 Likes
You donât see me banning random people for being ill to my standards. 
4 Likes
Problem is not everybody is a true pirate
5 Likes
Alright iâm going to try reading this whole thing but iâm going to point out.
That the definition of abuse your looking at is clearly different atleast from other people since you think admins will inevitably abuse even unintentionally.
Which isnât really true Especially if admins are provided with limited resources to work with when a problem comes up (Like giving mods less perms)
Edit: even if admins do have the tools to abuse, why will they inevitably do it?
Do you consider things like setting the time to day abuse? What if a mod had all of those permissions and never did that.
What if players vote for âabuseâ Or agree with admins doing âabuseâ
Of course, this shouldnât happen on official servers. Thatâs a bit chaotic.
Just because all the players said âspawn in 100 tanksâ doesnât mean the admins should do so. Because that undermines the purpose of the server to play default survival, i highly doubt EVERYONE would agree with that and this isnât even counting the people who plan on this server and then hear about this.
But personally iâm not against admins starting up events in the server which would be possible by using your permissions to your extent
1 Like
Ban Molt pls
7 Likes
Nope, its the same sort of abuse that people should find to be abuse. Just because they will inevitably abuse doesnât mean my definition for what abuse is changed. Moreso a different perspective.
Are you implying that by removing abusive commands, like spawning in items, admins wont be able to abuse? Surely for someone that used to be a moderator, especially in my Server Franchise you would know that removing the blatantly abusive commands and permissions is never enough, because the tools necessary to catch hackers (such as teleport, god, vanish) are still necessary and can be abusive in hundreds of ways for an advantage.
Not sure how you forgot that one.
Yes. If you read the post, you would understand this and stop questioning it.
I âabuse unintentionallyâ everytime I login to my servers and teleport around to players checking theyâre hackers because I have just used my position to learn about things, places, players, and loot that otherwise wouldnât be possible for the average player. I could leak this information, intentionally or by accident. This is just one of many ways you could abuse moderator status.
Then what if you teleport to someone to check for hacks and theyâre in their base? Do you just teleport back to being a player, and try to pretend like you never saw it? Do you never raid it, because people might just accuse you of abuse?
That is objectively abuse. Players cant do that. And the staff might use it to their advantage. What if the staffâs team can easily turn up their gamma to see at night, so they switch it to night to put themselves at an advantage relative to everyone else?
If the server allows for day/night voting, then thats not abuse. The majority of players can choose if they want day or night, and if you donât like servers with day/night voting, you can choose another. On the opposite, you cant just find servers that are or are not abusive.
If a mod had a ton of unnecessary abusive permissions⌠then I wouldnât play the server? They shouldnât have those permissions because they will abuse them eventually?
If players can âvoteâ for âabuseâ then it should be clearly stated in the server description, then I wont join. If theres abuse, one side is gaining and one side is loosing. It sounds pretty shitty to put players in a position to vote for someone to get an unfair advantage at an admins will.
Just because they agree with abuse doesnât mean it isnât abuse. Just because abuse is democratic and approved of doesnât mean its right or is not abuse. Just because people believe something isnât abuse doesnât mean it isnât abuse. Just because you think something is right doesnât make it right.
This will inevitably lead to situations of abuse. If admins can start events, then that probably means they can spawn in items as rewards for winning the event. This could go horribly wrong, directly or indirectly.
Maybe if such âeventsâ were completely automated without an admin, which is 100% possible, then we should do that instead. But then again, it wouldnât be vanilla, would it?
cough airdrops cough
Friendly reminder there are much more subtle forms of abuse than outright blatantly banning people.
which was shit
which didnât really need to be brought up
which is also probably going to be shit as long as you address this correctly
just saying, nelson could pick people who applied on the application and interview personally himself
i donât think the whole game would look terrible, maybe or probably just the serverside stuff
i donât think thatâs one reason for people to negatively view a game. i look at a game through its mechanics and gameplay, not through the players and moderators that do what they do.
those are just ten year olds, donât listen to them
just do a vc with a person who applied on an application and take them through staff training
nobody said worrying about staff abuse is stupid
Wow alright, already moving to rash decisions. but, how do you propose we play multiplayer?
i can hear gumballs voice for some reason saying this, but also, what the fuck does this mean?
uhhhhhh⌠hierarchical
so like a voting booth?
ok since when did this turn into a court case?
no, because the free pass players donât know the rules on the server since they cant access it
overall, i do believe admins can be a bit abusive at points, and your main arguments address it somewhat well. but then why did you have to add this democratic voting booth court case shit? makes zero sense.
1 Like
thanks
thanks
thanks
Thats what I implied? Nelson would have to interview thousands of kids personally, that would take tons of time.
It would make the developer, SDG, look bad aswell as obviously the Official Servers. I explained earlier theres far more to worry about than just official servers
I think that is more than enough of a reason to negatively review a game. I review Tower Unite as negative because itâs devs are garbage, treat people like garbage, and dont have the decency to give the community what it wants, ontop of abusing their moderator abilities to mute people or ban things that didnât need to be banned.
Sure theres a lot to the game itself like mechanics and gameplay, but to simply overlook everything else simply doesnât work. If you didnât consider all of the extra elements behind the development and community of 3.0, then you wouldnât understand why P2W is rampant and all the popular servers arenât vanilla.
Its almost like context?
Implying that questioning and challenging authority is limited to, or exclusively only 10 year olds would do.
Implying Iâm a 10 year old
Implying all Anarchists are 10 year olds
I train all of my staff, yet some accidently abuse. Its inevitable. No amount of training will solve that.
Think of an Unturned group. No amount of purity tests, lengthy applications, and voice chats will stop enemies or spies from infiltrating into your group. The false belief that more regulations and checks will prevent something in its entirety is just flawed, this goes for any kind of regulation.
I think youâre stupid, because if you clicked on the blue text youâd be redirected to a post where someone literally said just that. That just goes to show how much you read and put thought into the post.
Thankyou for essentially claiming my idea is âirrationalâ or âradicalâ. Unturned I does not have Official Servers. Many games do not have Official Servers.
The system most servers use for staff are very undemocratic. Staff werenât democratically put into positions. Their behavior and job is not democratically reviewed. Many other things.
But even democracy can be finicky.
âŚ
âŚ
The whole point of Observatory is to ban hackers. How could someone voting not know the rules? The only rule is to vote guilty if theyâre a clear hacker, and vote innocent if theyâre not.
To agree they can or have abused, is to reinforce they idea that they can and will intentionally/unintentionally abuse.
If you are interested in learning about ^&^(!@%! you can learn more here.
