Ladle 27 Discussion/plan for voting of settings

[compguygene]

hmmm

/admin kill all drama

RA: compguygene has killed all drama for this forum thread

New command here on the forums. Let's see how it works.
But seriously, we seem to have identified only a few things to vote on.

Global admins: yes/no
Move Ladle start time back one hour: yes/no

What else should we vote on?

[Olive]

I know im just a kiddo but IMO the best solution to avoid drama is not to give admin powers to participants, they are most likely to handle in a way which is in favor of their team.

[MrsKsr]

which is why i said Z-Man, epsy, comp - people who usually spec ^^

[Hoax]

Hmm that's funny because I've played shitloads of ladles with admin and never abused it; maybe you want to rephrase that.
But If it's possible to have a non playing admin in each server then this seems to be the best possible solution to any disagreements.

[compguygene]

it wouldn't necessarily have to be one admin per server. In the ladle, i routinely watch 2 or 3 servers at a time. In the opening round, this is particularly easy.

[epsy]

I remember trying that ended up in my gfx divers crashing. Maybe with console access that would work, but I don't think it is wise to ask everyone for ssh access and giving access out in the wild.

[Z-Man]

I never had technical problems with too many running clients. If it's low-intensity admining and there's no simultaneous fires to put, watching over two or three servers at once are an efficient use of time.

[compguygene]

I never had technical problems with too many running clients. If it's low-intensity admining and there's no simultaneous fires to put, watching over two or three servers at once are an efficient use of time.

Same here, I routinely run 2-3 clients on my wife's computer. It probably helps that it has a 24" monitor, 4gb ram and a quad-core amd phenom. I would imagine that z-man and I could easily cover 4-6 servers between the 2 of us.

[Olive]

Hmm that's funny because I've played shitloads of ladles with admin and never abused it; maybe you want to rephrase that.
But If it's possible to have a non playing admin in each server then this seems to be the best possible solution to any disagreements.

I wrote the particular part in bold, so no i wont rephrase.

It's not that I dont trust you or any other admin, but its the fact that admins can make decisions in favor of their team. The decisions of an independant admin would be much more respected, only I think its hard to get that many people to admin. Maybe 1 admin can take care of 2 servers?

[zion]

Hi all,

because everything seems to be said in the other thread and it fits better here...
For upcoming tourneys I would wish that the teamleaders have to be in charge to handle their teammates, so that something like what we've seen in PLUS vs DS won't be able to happen again.
I was one of those teamleaders. According to what was said on the grid I don't have to feel ashamed for my teammates. The starting 'stfu' is a common abbreviation like you all know and if something like that would happen again I still would please all my other teammates to leave the server. There is no use talking about using silencing function when you are in a running match, have to def and the opponent decides to start making fun of you. Using the silence function is not what I expect in such a situation. It is the teamleader who has to make clear that misbehaving isn't part of the game. And he is the only one who should take responsibility if the concerned player isn't listening to him. Then he should suspend him.
This is all just theory. If a team has noone in the back who could take the players position who misbehaved, then the teamleader would think twice to suspend the mate. And that's the point the global admin comes to action.
I can remember times when z-man took that part. Ok, we have lots of tourneys, it needs time and I can expect z-man having a rl, too. But then we need other people who are respected by the whole community or just have the necessary powers.

I use my silence function often enough when I am ingame so I don't have a problem using it. I just don't think talking should be part of the game. Maybe we should think about quite matches to avoid something like that?


zion...

...wants back his ingame fun!

[MrsKsr]

Please don't bring that topic here

I think tbh "taunting" etc. is part of the game, some people can handle it and others can't. Suspending members of a team isn't going to calm down a "problematic teammate" I can see that it would probably make the situation worse... Although there are clans etc in Ladle, you have to remember there are teams with a completely different ethic to clans. They don't particularly have a leader or a heirachal system; so in a nutshell you can't expect their actions to be controlled by one single person After all most of the people here are old enough to account for their own actions, arma is not a creché ^^

I think if so many people are becomming aggrovated by that kind of taunting, then it may be a good idea to set up some kind of guidelines as to what behaviour is acceptable during ladle. Just a suggestion.

[noob_saibot]

quit bringing up that shit...

why dont you just silence all players on the opposing team at start? Focus on winning, not on what other people say to you that may hurt your feelings otherwise you might as well withdraw your team NOW. Nobody needs to designate a captain to babysit their team, that is just dumb. Quit being a nancy boy and play the game, or dont play then

This is a discussion for settings no?? Geeeeeez

[AshitakA]

Just want to mention this again. Surely it fits here better.
At this, I want to come up with an Idea, which is easily possible to realise. It’s the same structure like in the ladle, except there will be two tables.
At the start the second table will be empty, but after the first round it would be filled up with the teams, that will loose the first round.
So the teams still would have a chance to win the second table. The matches would be going on parallel and there won’t be a need for more servers. At the end we would have two winner teams, one absolute and one of the second elite.
It wouldn’t take much longer, and probably be more fun. I mentioned this long time ago, but nobody didn’t really thought about. Maybe now time has come to try a new kind of tourney or ladle in the future. A voting would be nice.

@ zion: Why do you think talking should not be part? For myself, it would be making it less attractive. And it would be unfair too, because I think you also talk over skype during playing. Or did I get it wrong?

[sinewav]

Or did I get it wrong?

You got it wrong. Talking isn't his problem, taunting is.

AshitakA, I think you're describing a double-elimination bracket, correct? Yes I agree it's worth a vote, just to see how we all feel about it. But I don't think the brackets are a problem right now. Maybe I'm wrong.

One of the main reasons for this voting discussion is to flush out problems with the Ladle. Currently, the Ladle is running fine, so let's try to keep the discussion focused on immediate problems. The behavior problem is a FPL issue, not a Ladle one. But if you must bring it up, do it up in a useful way. Here, watch this:

* Should we assign a behavior moderator in each Ladle server? yes|no
* Should we add SILENCE_ENEMIES 1 to Ladle CFGs? yes|no

(with SILENCE_ENEMIES 1 enabled, it will be the responsibility of the team captains to un-silence each other and communicate the start of the match.)

Remember, you may or may not have a problem with taunting, but it will ultimately come down to a vote.


EDIT: Does SILENCE_ENEMIES only affect 0.3 clients? I'm not sure if this is even a realistic option, so hopefully someone will correct me.

[kyle]

ct|kyle: .cfg3 SILENCE_E
tronner: ct|kyle: SILENCE_ENEMIES: When enabled, chat sent from enemies is not displayed on your client if you are alive. If you are dead all chat is displayed. (Default: 0)
ct|kyle: .cfg2 SILENCE_E
tronner: ct|kyle: Sorry, no matches :S

so ya only 0.3