The Mana World Forums

Chicka-Maria, I just found a post from you in a GM nomination thread a year ago:

Chicka-Maria wrote:I voted no for a variety of reasons.

1) Being a GM will take away your Dev time, and your a pixel artist which we need most right now. Being busy being a moderator i dont think you would have time to do both for developing takes a long time to do. I would rather you have more time to pixel then to moderate.

You were using exactly my argument there. Why did you change your opinion about that?

Crush wrote:Chicka-Maria, I just found a post from you in a GM nomination thread a year ago:

Chicka-Maria wrote:I voted no for a variety of reasons.

1) Being a GM will take away your Dev time, and your a pixel artist which we need most right now. Being busy being a moderator i dont think you would have time to do both for developing takes a long time to do. I would rather you have more time to pixel then to moderate.

You were using exactly my argument there. Why did you change your opinion about that?

Edit: I noticed i might have sounded a bit hostel with my post and i didn't want to sound that way (sorry if i did wasn't meant that way). What i was trying to say was that was over a year + ago and i was told by several developers the same thing that i had posted. I don't exactly remember what i was 100% thinking over a year ago but i had other reasons i should have mentioned...nard mentions them as well somewhere, I just felt that was the weakest thing to put on there considering wombat at the time told me several times in a PM that Devs could not be GMs. As well as other admins saying the same thing. But i do realize that the person that is running should not be unconsidered because of a status, and that the person should have a choice even if the other developers or admins don't like it because they would rather them do something else which is not fair to them. I hope this makes a bit more sense to your question than my last post.

regards,

Taking away from the actual thoughts of whether a person is or isn't voting yes for another person for GM, I have an opinion which I'll state. It doesn't make it right, but it's my opinion.

If a person has the time and resources to offer themselves as a developer, it is commendable that they do this, and is appreciated by people such as myself. Also, if a person has the time, resources and temperament to be a GM, then this too is appreciated by people such as myself (I think I'm making myself sound plural by saying "People such as myself", but I think I'm not alone).

Therefore, if a person who has the time, resources and temperament to perform both tasks and volunteers to do such, kudos to them. Good work.

Now if a person who WAS a Developer, and has left due to reasons not to begrudge nor harm anyone, but for their own reasons, wants to be a GM, good for them. Likewise, if a person who WAS a GM, and has left due to reasons not to begrudge nor harm anyone, but for their own reasons, wants to be a Developer, good for them too.

I mean, if someone wants to help others, and has the capabilities, then why stop them on some other grounds, if there are none? All the people who add to this game by their input, it's appreciated. Good on you all. Others who don't have the skills, or time, good on you for being supportive of each other too.

All the best.

I think the rule is bullshit. If sombody wants to donate there time let them. Don't say no to devs wanting to be GM's... The more GM's the better! What is wrong with more GM's exactly? Why rely on one person for one time period thats just stupidity IMO. Devs can't be GM's will result in Active Devs quiting development totally and wanting to be gms anyways. I rather have a Developer be a GM and pop in and help once in a while than sombody quit completely and be a gm. If they think they can handle it let them. Your not there parents and people can multitask perfectly fine.

I perfectly agree with meway on this one. This rule works two ways, it could potentially stop people to become official developers cause they know that it would hurt their chances of ever becoming GM's - even if it's intended to keep the devs to develop rather than policing the players in game.

For me there is no big problem that a developer might not have time to play as much as someone who only is i GM, if they've got what it takes to be a GM then that is by it self good enough. Even if they only for one hour a week they might be the only GM:s online for that one hour.

There might be some political reasons to why you want to keep the gms and devs separated - I havn't thought about it much in that way. But the biggest problem as i see it right now is that the dev-team is greatly under staffed while there is probably more people who would like to become GM's. I think that if the Dev-status was something of a shortcut to becoming a GM it might get more people checking out developing and trying it out albeit for the wrong reasons initially - they might get hooked and stay with it.

Just my two cents.

Hey look another topic getting swiped under a rug.

we will never have a gm who have been a dev because the ghp is like a grandpa... never changing opinion!!!
-no joke-

ChefChelios wrote:we will never have a gm who have been a dev because the ghp is like a grandpa... never changing opinion!!!
-no joke-

This isn't a GHP decision...

It is my decision, and I kept explaining the reasoning behind it several years. I don't have a time for it anymore. The wellness of the project is more important than someones individual ambitions.

Regards.

Platyna wrote:The wellness of the project is more important than someones individual ambitions.

If this would be a non individual ambition I see no reason why all the critical discussions were canceled with a "Its the way it is, it won't change" without giving real reasons and without anyone (even not GHP members) knowing a lot about the rule (and how it should be interpreted). I was also not able to find any reasons for this in old posts (except for that a current dev cannot be a GM). So can you post link to those maybe?

Also why doesn't the GHP decide about this? Shouldn't the GHP care about setting rules instead of somebody who has "individual ambitions"?

Looking forward to hear further explanations.

Regards and a nice weekend
Ablu

I don't think *anyone* actually agrees with Platyna on this ...

o11c wrote:I don't think *anyone* actually agrees with Platyna on this ...

I do agree with her, but I'm not part of the GHP anyway.

A developer is much more helpful to a development game than a game master is, a Game Master is meant to enforce the rules and without really helping in the development and in the world's extention.
Developers are pillars of a game, and if by removing a game master you can add another pillar, then do it!

I understand Platyna statement and I personally follow the same ideology in my project, no developer should worry about the task of "upholding the game rules".

Reid wrote:

o11c wrote:I don't think *anyone* actually agrees with Platyna on this ...

I understand Platyna statement and I personally follow the same ideology in my project, no developer should worry about the task of "upholding the game rules".

By developer, she includes any former developers. To me, this is punitive, because those people are "marked for life" in this respect.
Obviously, I disagree in this matter.

Being a GM is another duty not a cookie or any other kind of reward (it is one of the reasons why this rule was set, but it is impossible to count how many times I have said that).

I do not cut all discussions, I just cut discussions that were done gazillion of times - because it is pointless. When two parties are discussing and none is willing to change their mind the discussion becomes pointless and it is time to end it.

I am also dissapointed that some people tries to interfere with the rules I set, behind my back (I have found a topic when someone was already prepared to announce that no devs rule no longer apply). As well as changing the bot rule interpretation. It is my first and final warning - any hand raised behind my back, on the rules I set, will be cut off.

Regards.

Hello,

Platyna wrote: I am also dissapointed that some people tries to interfere with the rules I set, behind my back (I have found a topic when someone was already prepared to announce that no devs rule no longer apply). As well as changing the bot rule interpretation.

Hu? Why are forum posts behind somebody's back? I think everybody is involved there and can discuss it?

Platyna wrote:It is my first and final warning - any hand raised behind my back, on the rules I set, will be cut off.

Sorry, But you said this:

Platyna wrote:The wellness of the project is more important than someones individual ambitions.

But the point you have "Support my opinion or loose your hand" sounds exactly like an invdividual ambition.

Other people (from the GHP) already expressed in this thread that they do not understand this rule, so why isn't it possible to discuss this?

I do not cut all discussions, I just cut discussions that were done gazillion of times - because it is pointless.

As already requested before: can you link me to a discussion that covered the reasons for this? I was unable to find it.

Regards and a nice weekendend
Ablu