Actually, that seemed fairly heated on both sides. But using an outside perspective, e.g. A "non-serverops", as your moderating ground is not a bad idea.
Someone without a vested interest and therefore not subject to the bias that server operators would naturally have would be able to weigh up your arguments and come to a rational conclusion. You can have a constructive debate on both sides, if it got to that point, without it being skewed in favour of one particular side. Clearly, if it was a server operator moderating the debate, they would have a prejudice towards a particular argument and the opposing side may as well not even raise their point. Or am I to believe that the idea of bias limiting in debates is a complete fallacy in this day and age? > On 18 Dec 2015, at 23:52, Matthias InstantMuffin Kollek <proph...@sticed.org> > wrote: > > Yep, trolling. > Thanks for making it obvious. > > Anyone with an actual constructive interest wants to way in? > >> On 19.12.2015 00:47, Cats From Above wrote: >> Firstly, if the group was to be an official channel (which will never >> happen) then there is good reason why someone without vested interests in >> server hosting should be channeling the discussion back to Valve. I'll use >> Mathias as an example. Matthias is very clearly anti-advertising and >> believes that communities using such should be sv_tagged accordingly, if it >> is allowed at all. I have no doubt that if Matthias was in a moderating >> position, he would abuse said position to surreptitiously advance that >> agenda irrespective of the official stance of the collective he is supposed >> to be representing. I note that rules do not require communities to use >> sv_tags for their MOTD content at this point in time – Yet Matthias clearly >> believes that anyone who uses advertising as a revenue model is committing >> some great moral evil, thus undermining his ability to work with others. >> >> Secondly, I wasn't aware Ross's response required any further debate or >> discussion or that I was required to respond to every post made. However, >> since Matthias seems to think that I robbed Ross of a response, yes, there >> is a game server token system, obviously; No, Valve have not been using it >> to ban servers within Team Fortress 2 and I suspect that they don't really >> use it as a banning mechanism in CS:GO on regular basis aside from the >> occasional knife plugin related ban (Ergo: To protect the item economy and >> the profits associated thereof) - Though others are better able to comment >> on the happenings of GLST in CS:GO servers hence why I initially did not. >> Perhaps others on this mailing list could show that same type >> of restraint henceforth, Matthias? >> >> Thirdly, there is nothing ironic about my post, perhaps Matthias needs to >> revise the definition of the word irony. Moving onto the context in which he >> used it, my stance is not as he presented it, but rather my stance is that >> A) Valve won't be interested in pedestaling anyone within the realm of >> "community" hosting as a source of feedback on this matter. B) Valve won't >> be interested in limiting sources of feedback or what feedback they receive, >> all feedback is valuable. C) That any such group will not represent the >> various views of all operators and that operators are better off making >> mature, private and direct contact with Valve instead of pushing an agenda >> through a single channel that may not always be representative of their >> community's stance on various matters. Matthias seems to completely ignore >> that it is he, via pushing this suggestion of an official, filtered, >> channel, that would seek to rob server operators with minority opinions of a >> voice – That is an example irony. >> >> And lastly, the reason I don't care about the troll badge that Matthias is >> so desperately trying to staple to my forehead is that it was given to me by >> someone who doesn't even know Godwin's law – hardly a respectable >> individual. For the uninitiated, Matthias, ye who casts the first Nazi >> analogy loses the debate and thier credibility. Google it and bring a more >> intelligent analogy in future. >> >> >>> On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 8:50 AM, Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek >>> <proph...@sticed.org> wrote: >>> GSPs have definitively established the meaning of what a "private server" >>> is and so has Valve in the quickplay menu with "community servers". I see >>> no need for further debate here. You can use whatever term you want, but >>> it's ridiculous to say others official terminology is the wrong one to use >>> - and furthermore, not helping the discussion. >>> You still haven't fully understood the "voice concept" I guess. There is no >>> reason why this group should be moderated by non-serverops. That is >>> ridiculous. You might as well demand that the democrats should be >>> represented by a Nazi. >>> Also, it seems you have completely ignored Powerlord's (Ross) point, which >>> is introducing tokens to properly identify, report and remove servers. I >>> also don't care who brought up the slag's servers. It is neither me, nor >>> Robert saying which community servers are bad (or rather, how abusive >>> specific servers are to their players), as you noticed in your enumeration, >>> it is the representative opinion of SPUF players. >>> Now where lies the issue? In servers not being properly tagged (ads, p2w) >>> and banned (fake players, p2w), therefore giving decent community servers >>> the taint that comes with the baddies they're not related to. This is what >>> the GSLT token system is for, and this is what Valve is already using in >>> CSGO. >>> It is ironic that you are against an organized group that moves this OT >>> discussion into a constructive and moderated forum so Valve can hear us, >>> while you are against Valve ignoring groups. So you're finally right. Valve >>> is not interested in limiting itself to who or what it listens to. So why >>> not let the server-ops have a voice as well, among other preexisting groups? >>> Yes, I am interested in community servers thriving. But I am not interested >>> in abusive, ad-infested, p2w communities that give honest and hard-working >>> serverops a bad rep. >>> Something no one has mentioned before, and as an explanation as to why some >>> communities apparently (can't really verify what their ops say, I actually >>> have opposing stats as I mentioned before), is that the mid-popularity >>> communities die out due to the changes and their playerbase may or may not >>> mitigate to the few popular communities that could establish themselves >>> before the quickplay changes. Thus making it impossible to survive or start >>> a community regardless of content and management if you aren't in the top >>> 5%. >>> >>> Last but not least, if you say you're fine with wearing the troll badge, I >>> think that shows your stance and your cause. I don't see you being >>> opposing, or constructive. I see you rephrasing and hiding behind other >>> people's points, and derailing the topic down to terminologies, saying >>> nothing will work no matter what, literally laughing about others who try. >>> And for those well-organized walls of texts, that's a bad yield. I think we >>> got whatever small point you made, and I believe two sentences would have >>> sufficed. >>> >>> >>> On 18.12.2015 22:45, Cats From Above wrote: >>>> Firstly, perhaps the term I meant was actually private server operator. >>>> And yes, whilst it can be interpreted to refer to a “passworded” server, >>>> It can also be used to refer to the nature of its management - Ergo: >>>> Operated by a private entity other than Valve Valve. The term “community >>>> server” is somewhat emotive in this debate and it makes it sound like to >>>> have no “community servers” is indicative of poor health in the Team >>>> Fortress 2 “community” or something of that nature – Something that is not >>>> a given. >>>> >>>> Secondly, I find it mildly amusing that both Robert and Matthias have the >>>> chutzpa to go around telling modded server operators how well their >>>> servers are and are not doing – as if the operators themselves don’t know. >>>> A Fearts (DISC-FF) was on here earlier saying that Quickplay hasn’t >>>> negatively affected his modded servers and in fact since the Quickplay >>>> changes they’ve only gotten more popular. I myself have similar experience >>>> in this regard. >>>> >>>> Thirdly, I acknowledge the diversity of this group. However, I do not >>>> believe that pedestaling a select few private server operators as the >>>> “voice of all privately run servers” is the answer. Nor do I think Valve >>>> is interested in limiting itself to who or what it listens to nor would it >>>> be interested in having someone else picking and choosing what it hears. >>>> If such a group were made, it would need to be headed by someone with no >>>> vested interest in privately operated servers – In Vegan parlance this >>>> means someone that isn’t running or involved in the running of a community. >>>> >>>> Fourthly, the routine complaints on this mailing list every time Valve >>>> pushes an update is not community outcry, in my view. Every individual >>>> here who seems to have an issue with Quickplay has a vested interest in >>>> the operation of a privately managed server. Hence, I suspect that most >>>> involvement here is triggered by a desire to see one’s privately operated >>>> server(s) survive as opposed to any genuine care for the wider Team >>>> Fortress 2 community. >>>> >>>> Fifthly, SLAG was initially brought up by Robert in one of his earlier >>>> responses. He used it as an example of a popular modded community that had >>>> been significantly hurt by Quickplay, hence my response referring to >>>> SLAG's issues at an administrative level that are probably doing it more >>>> harm than Quickplay is. If Matthias read Robert’s response, he would have >>>> known why this comment was made. >>>> Sixthly, if putting forward an opposing point of view and throwing in the >>>> occasional ad hominem jibe makes me a troll, then it is a label I shall >>>> wear proudly. Thank you. >>>> Finally, you can bet your money that if I created a SPUF thread asking “Do >>>> you want community servers back in the default Quickplay pool?” that the >>>> overwhelming response will be “No”, with specific reference to not wanting >>>> things like, A) Advertising B) Fake players C) Pay to win benefits D) >>>> Abusive Admins E) Stupid game mods F) Arbitrary rules etc. – These are all >>>> stereotypes some Quickplay users “look forward to” when they join a >>>> community server and I don’t think Quickplay users more generally speaking >>>> want a bar of it. Valve are fully aware of this reality, hence the reason >>>> for the change they made in the first place. >>>> >>>> Regardless, N-Gon has aptly demonstrated the pointlessness of this >>>> conversation with his off-topic remark >>>> >>>>> On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 4:21 AM, Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek >>>>> <proph...@sticed.org> wrote: >>>>> There is no community outcry, because this is the outcry. You're >>>>> expecting an outcry from people who are barely able to adjust their >>>>> game's settings, let alone disable the motd in their configs to get rid >>>>> of annoying ads. >>>>> I also don't know why you're bringing up Slag's servers. I've heard a few >>>>> stories about him. I know some model designers who he ripped off, he >>>>> stole their content without giving two fucks. It is also not quite >>>>> white-knighty of a community to sell unmutes and unbans. I wouldn't pick >>>>> him as the poster boy for well-run community servers or better phrased >>>>> "friendly". >>>>> If you're questioning the talent that is left in the modding community, >>>>> feel free to ask this question again in the next two months. >>>>> Honestly, I think you're trying to troll on a high level here. "One of >>>>> those vegan types", yeah sure. "Funny" >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, >>>> please visit: >>>> https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, >>> please visit: >>> https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, >> please visit: >> https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds > > _______________________________________________ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please > visit: > https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds
_______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds
