The Mana World Forums

blackrazor wrote: They are not elected player representatives, they are elected-for-life + GHP approved LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS! How many times, seriously? Their job is not to represent the players, it is to enforce the rules laid down by the administration, for the players to obey. That is not player representation. In your country, would you like to elect-for-life (subject to executive approval) the sheriffs (law enforcement officers) to your congress, and have THAT called your representatives?

Also, one person's "edge case" is another person's continual push to encroach on rules that were already clearly made and set. Just saying. I can see Platyna getting annoyed after a while of the same thing, over and over, and start giving short answers to people that should have already known better by then. Was that the best way for her to handle it? No. Does it stop GMs from doing their job? No. Is it a reason to kick out a top-admin and take her data-files for your own fork? No.

Blackrazor, have you ever been GM on TMW working underneath Platyna?
Better yet, have you any understanding how botting has evolved over the 2 years I have been a GM!

Silly question, of course you do ........ than why make the above statement?

Prsm


ps. still waiting for a quote from you saying that i said i was against the move! you gotta back that up if you
want credibility!

blackrazor wrote:They are not elected player representatives, they are elected-for-life + GHP approved LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS! How many times, seriously? Their job is not to represent the players, it is to enforce the rules laid down by the administration, for the players to obey. That is not player representation.

From http://forums.themanaworld.org/viewtopi ... 38#p132138:

Jenalya wrote:

TMW Committee wrote: A. Game Masters. Game Masters are responsible for enforcing the rules of the game, in game. Secondarily, Game Masters act as a bridge from the players to development team. All Game Masters are members of The Mana World Committee. To become a Game Master, a person must be voted in by the player community and approved by The Mana World Committee.

See also: http://forums.themanaworld.org/posting. ... 1&p=132157.

I'm looking for the official public definition of GMs in the older GHP structure. I'll post when I find it.

prsm wrote:
Blackrazor, have you ever been GM on TMW working underneath Platyna?
Better yet, have you any understanding how botting has evolved over the 2 years I have been a GM!

Silly question, of course you do ........ than why make the above statement?

Because he is a troll, that's why.

prsm wrote: ps. still waiting for a quote from you saying that i said i was against the move! you gotta back that up if you
want credibility!

Credibility is not what he wants.

Jaxad0127 wrote:

blackrazor wrote:They are not elected player representatives, they are elected-for-life + GHP approved LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS! How many times, seriously? Their job is not to represent the players, it is to enforce the rules laid down by the administration, for the players to obey. That is not player representation.

From http://forums.themanaworld.org/viewtopi ... 38#p132138:

Jenalya wrote:

TMW Committee wrote: A. Game Masters. Game Masters are responsible for enforcing the rules of the game, in game. Secondarily, Game Masters act as a bridge from the players to development team. All Game Masters are members of The Mana World Committee. To become a Game Master, a person must be voted in by the player community and approved by The Mana World Committee.

See also: http://forums.themanaworld.org/posting. ... 1&p=132157.

I'm looking for the official public definition of GMs in the older GHP structure. I'll post when I find it.

You can show me a quote where the sky is officially declared purple by those in power, that does not make it so. That same thread you quoted has a discussion about how GMs cannot be representatives of those they are assigned to review and punish (as appropriate). It is a conflict of interest. Maybe in the Spanish Inquisition you can refer to your enforcer and punisher as also your representative, but not in the modern world.

Rill wrote: *more trollings*

Awww ... cute. I have my very own TheManaWorld forums stalker. Well, at least it's a girl (I hope).

blackrazor wrote:Awww ... cute. I have my very own TheManaWorld forums stalker.

It takes one to know one.

you can show me a quote where the sky is officially declared purple by those in power, that does not make it so. That same thread you quoted has a discussion about how GMs cannot be representatives of those they are assigned to review and punish (as appropriate). It is a conflict of interest. Maybe in the Spanish Inquisition you can refer to your enforcer and punisher as also your representative, but not in the modern

if you don't believe they go by their own definitions they themselves defined, then what makes you think they would adhere to a constitution even if they had one?

prsm wrote: ps. still waiting for a quote from you saying that i said i was against the move! you gotta back that up if you
want credibility!

I never said you were against it. I said GMs said that they weren't a part of the move, and didn't agree with how it was done. To me that shows that they went along with it, but weren't committed to it as a matter of TMW's survival. That's not the same thing as being against it.

Here is my quote again, for you to review, so you don't accuse me of something I did not write:
http://forums.themanaworld.org/viewtopi ... &start=244

blackrazor wrote: All of the GMs, at various points, in various threads, claimed they weren't in on the move, and had various levels of unease at how it was done. They all supported the move, but that's not the same thing as being committed to it.

I will look for the appropriate quotes to back up my own statements, that GMs said they weren't in on the move and didn't agree with how it was done. While I'm busy poring over reams of text and we're on the topic of "backing something up if you want credibility", I'm still waiting for the TMWC (of which you are a part), to:

1) Post a link to any official signed document, organizational constitution, or certificate of incorporation that clearly assigns "the project" and its associated data-files with a particular legal group, organization, or individuals, that would give legal backing to the copying of data residing on the Platinum machine (with ownership claimed by Platyna) for the intended use of moving the game elsewhere, and across EU boundaries.

http://forums.themanaworld.org/viewtopi ... 1&start=48

2) Post how the TMWC intends to guarantee, that if it owns said data, that it is effectively controlling the security of said data, by ensuring that it is the sole and legal guardian of said data, especially in light of the fact that this data still exists on Platinum.

http://forums.themanaworld.org/viewtopi ... &start=225

The old bait and switch,

I won't be answering you any time soon. You said I said something which i did not say.
Until you prove otherwise, i don't feed a troll!


Prsm

Rill wrote:

blackrazor wrote:Awww ... cute. I have my very own TheManaWorld forums stalker.

It takes one to know one.

I'm not forum stalking you, unless your definition of forum stalking includes me defending myself from your attacks in threads were I have just posted.

Len wrote: if don't believe they go by their own definitions, they themselves defined what males you think they would adhere to a constitution even if they had one?

If there was a (properly written) constitution, at least the rules of data-file ownership and succession of top-admins would be crystal clear. That way, if a group acted outside the constitution, they more easily and vigorously could be called on it. Also, I don't believe there is deliberate malfeasance here, as much as a desire to take maximum advantage of perceived grey-areas and to also allow these grey-areas to continue. A constitution would eliminate, or at least greatly reduce these grey-areas.

A definition of elected-for-life (subject to executive committee approval) LEO = player representative is nonsensical, due to the obvious conflict of interest with having your enforcer / punisher also being your representative. It is disingenuous to equate that broken definition with a reasoning of why a properly written constitution would not help clarify many of the very things that have been debated in this thread.

prsm wrote:The old bait and switch,

I won't be answering you any time soon. You said I said something which i did not say.
Until you prove otherwise, i don't feed a troll!


Prsm

More excuses not to answer legitimate questions, while I honestly perform the proper research on the question you asked. Give me a couple hours; I'm not asking for days or an indefinite period or no real answer at all, such as that the community so far has received to the perfectly valid questions that have already been submitted days ago to the TMWC via this thread, and which I linked to in my previous post.

Also, don't be a hypocrite. Don't accuse me of saying things I did not say; you claimed I said "GMs were against the move", to which I clearly proved I did not say. Yet you did not retract your accusation. I certainly cannot prove a claim which I did not make, so fix it properly, please. Stick to accusing me of saying what I actually did say, and no more or less.

What a GM is, is not a gray area as it has been defined, and yet you believe GM's roles are contradictory to what they have been defined as. Now you say defining the rules and power structure would somehow act as a deterrent. Sure it might be easier to call them out on it, but as I've been told most players are unaware or don't care.

I was 100% in on the move. I didnt do any of the actual moving, as that is not in my skillset at this time, however I was asked about it prior to the actual move and agreed emphatically. In fact i was in on some of the conversations regarding whether or not we should have told Platyna in x amount of time. I believe that it was my suggestion that we tell her a week ahead of the actual move, which we did via email. She has consequently said that she never received the email, which i can neither comfirm nor deny. We also posted a thread (here) 2 days prior to the actual move, which was conveniently not seen until after the actual move.

So to conclude, we GM's had every reason to want to move. Our 'Boss' wasn't available to be spoken with regarding virtually anything, to the detriment of our roles. Furthermore, all of us agreed to the move, and while wishing we felt comfortable giving her more notice, I think it has been proven that more time would have totally prevented the move, with no change to the status quo.

I think that may be what you are referring to. We did wish that we could have been open and forthcoming about the move, however none of us felt Platyna would have reacted kindly, and definitely would have entirely blocked the move and possibly removed anyone participating. Her actions after the move have certainly done nothing to alleviate that fear; quite the opposite in fact.

BC

EDIT - Also this is my last post on the subject. Everything is over and done with. It has been discussed ad nauseum. It's moved past the point of beating a dead horse. If I wanted to continuously beat a former horse shaped mass of meat and rotting flesh, I would go punch my dad. So say what you want, its no longer my concern.

Re: blackrazor

prsm wrote:The old bait and switch,

I won't be answering you any time soon. You said I said something which i did not say.
Until you prove otherwise, i don't feed a troll!


Prsm

+1

blackrazor wrote: All of the GMs, at various points, in various threads, claimed they weren't in on the move, and had various levels of unease at how it was done. They all supported the move, but that's not the same thing as being committed to it.

This is what you said, and said with conviction!

I did know about the move and supported it, although like BC i don't have the skill set to help in the move.

You also said supporting is not the same as being committed.

So prove that was my stance!

blackrazor wrote:They are not elected player representatives, they are elected-for-life + GHP approved LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS! How many times, seriously? Their job is not to represent the players, it is to enforce the rules laid down by the administration, for the players to obey. That is not player representation. In your country, would you like to elect-for-life (subject to executive approval) the sheriffs (law enforcement officers) to your congress, and have THAT called your representatives?

I would agree that it's quite a gap that we allow players to nominate and elect game masters, but don't give them a way to get rid of them. When you would propose a thought-out and practicable GM impeachment process in a new thread I might support it.