Ladle 30 31 and 32 Rules and timing discussion

[Flex]

For the next Ladle (31), do we want to include a space for Global Admins to sign up (maybe between teams and servers)?

Maybe a list of current global admins, but I don't think a sign up is a good idea. I think it's best they come here and elect themselves or someone elects them into the vote.

I still think the GA's should not be Ladle participants, but we'll see how things go.

It would be best, but then I don't think we have enough none-participating capable admins. But I agree with you for now.

And should we briefly outline the GA's responsibilities (starting a match, silencing spammers...)?

It's best we do so, yes. A section in the guidelines should be enough. Add whatever you think is suitable in the guidelines and we can improve on it as we go? I think we all agree the admins should only be able to promote team captains, fix incorrect settings (using only the ladle configuration settings), start the match, silence or kick annoying spectators (or and silence players arguing). Basic common sense stuff shouldn't require votes.

I think while you're at it (if you're going to do it), a section for what Team Leaders can do/can not do with their authority too would be nice under the GA's (Personally I think they should be called GM's for Global Moderators).

[Z-Man]

Heh, I actually was surprised I had admin rights on other servers last ladle I see this global moderator position more as a firefighting position, really. Like, there's a server without admin and people can't start the game. I jump in and restart the match, then let them do their thing. Ladles have been very incident free lately, players know how to behave properly.

What was this about again? Oh yeah, have them or not. Why don't we just give everyone running a server at least moderator rights on all servers? That works for the TST, and if we trust someone enough to play on their servers, I think we automatically trust them enough to admin all servers in cases of emergency. IF all servers keep logs, the unlikely abuse case can later be tracked down and acted upon, and of course, the server owner should get priority, i.e. if he's there and active, no other admin should interfere.

[Hoax]

Honestly, if you can't remember not having problems, then I think you're not remembering hard enough.

Ladles have been very incident free lately, players know how to behave properly.

Why don't we just give everyone running a server at least moderator rights on all servers? That works for the TST, and if we trust someone enough to play on their servers, I think we automatically trust them enough to admin all servers in cases of emergency. IF all servers keep logs, the unlikely abuse case can later be tracked down and acted upon, and of course, the server owner should get priority, i.e. if he's there and active, no other admin should interfere.

/thread

[sinewav]

Yes, I think that is a better solution.

[Flex]

I don't think so.. That solution simply wouldn't work and make things more susceptible to abuse. TST servers I assume are pre-selected and that means so are the admins, hence the "/staff". In the Ladle global moderators already exist and it's currently working as intendedly (as Z-Man pointed out). Check the last two previous global ID server configs. Indeed we only have one GM so far, but the whole point of this discussion was to finalize a working guideline for GM's and how to elect them and regulate them. Also obviously the server admins already have ownership/administrator access, so if they are already there, then giving them full access to other servers makes it redundant.

You first believe that participating players should not have global moderating powers, yet you agree with server admins having GM powers? Which could or might not be possible participators. Most probably most of them would, which then could lead to possible feuds with other teams and players which was the whole point of making such stricked, existing guidelines for GM's. Also being a server admin doesn't necessarily make you a good moderator, and we could end up with problems.

Global moderators are indeed like fire-fighters, only assisting hot-spots and not being needed 90% of the time, which is a reason why there would only be 4-5 of them ever needed in one Ladle, (capable of handling a 16 team bracket). There's no point in giving admins to a lot of people which could lead to possible mishap scenarios.

The Ladle is a self-organising tournament, so it requires at least clear paths of direction. Team leaders authority and a few global moderators is all we honestly need.

there's always been someone in the server to do it. (It being anything that needs to be done I guess, match starting, silencing oblivious specs etc.)

he was already set as an admin last Ladle, "USER_LEVEL Z-Man@forums 1".

What didn't you understand the first time? Figure it out yourself and stop being a prick. Trashing this thread with flame-bait isn't amusing.

[Hoax]

Hmm after looking at the server list most owners do tend to play in the ladle so I agree with that.

there's always been someone in the server to do it. (It being anything that needs to be done I guess, match starting, silencing oblivious specs etc.)

he was already set as an admin last Ladle, "USER_LEVEL Z-Man@forums 1".

Yes Z-Man has been admining hense why I said that there's always been someone to do so... ?

What didn't you understand the first time? Figure it out yourself and stop being a prick. Trashing this thread with flame-bait isn't amusing.

Some people might do that to you here but I'm not into spamming a ladle thread with flame-bait..

And should we briefly outline the GA's responsibilities (starting a match, silencing spammers...)?

sine are you on that? it would help with deciding how different if at all team leaders will be from gms

This can't continue until we've decided how many GM's are needed imo
I agree with sine in that they're most needed in the first round, which happens to be the round with the most matches. Last ladle had 8 first round matches so does everyone think we could get at least 8 global moderators that arn't playing in the ladle? If not then this discussion should just be about who covers for z-man when he can't make it as how would it be decided what first round matches are moderated? Unless people are confident to moderate more than one server at a time. I think dubstep might have in the TST; not sure how that worked out.

Lastly I don't see how gms are going to get elected but they need to put themselves forward first if they're interested. This will avoid gm's being chosen that are then busy when the ladle is on

[Concord]

If servers had proper permissions, and team captains we're trained properly to know what they were doing, we wouldn't need gms at all.

Just saying

[sinewav]

I'm going to say that a Global Mod must be able to oversee 2 matches simultaneously. This is totally reasonable. And since you can't play and mod at the same, this solves the player/mod conflict without eliminating players who happen to be elected mods.

Requiring mods to oversee 2 games simultaneously also reduces the number of mods needed for a Ladle. A 16 team bracket needs 4 mods. We can randomize mods, just like servers and teams.

Z-Man is Mod-1! We only need to elect 3 more (easy!). Next month we add a space for GM's to sign-up and then call a quick vote. Afterward we move this alongside the quarterly voting.

Here is my proposed set of responsibilities for Team Leaders and Global Mods. See if you agree, feel free to make changes.

Team Leaders are responsible for only the following:

• Locking the team and inviting players
• Changing the team names
• Starting a New Match

Global Mods are responsible for only the following:

• Silencing/Kicking spectators where appropriate
• Silencing team members if a valid complaint is made
• Settling a dispute that can't be resolved by Team Leaders - This may include problems that threatens the Ladle schedule, or improper settings (like missing auth or and inexplicable winzone appearing)

It should be rather easy to set up the authority for these. When we finally lock the responsibilities down, I'll add the rules and procedure to the wiki for next month.

The last remaining issue deals with the number of votes required to elect a GM - unanimous or simple majority. Please discuss.

[Hoax]

Alright nice.
If there's going to be a mod at every match; then only they should be able to start a match. At least if the mod doesn't show someone can go and get another to start it.
As for voting I doubt unanimous would work, just take the 3 (in this case) that have the most votes

[Cody <3]

Alright nice.
If there's going to be a mod at every match; then only they should be able to start a match. At least if the mod doesn't show someone can go and get another to start it.
As for voting I doubt unanimous would work, just take the 3 (in this case) that have the most votes

Team Leaders can already start the match...

/admin start_new_match

[Hoax]

I know so remove it if other people think mods starting the match is a good idea.
Anyway so far only 6 people have even said anything in this topic about global mods; is this what you call a strong sentiment? Seems like alot of effort for not much demand/interest

[Flex]

I agree with there being only a need for 4 GM's or so. If we look at a 16 team bracket and assume half of that the Team Leaders know what they're doing and the other half either don't know or the server isn't set up properly from the previous TM/GM's authority list. But because GM's have the same authority as last Ladles, they can solve the situation. So they jump in, quickly start the match and save a lot of hassle and confusion and move on. No more delays.

I like the idea of Team Leader AND Global Moderators, without both, it's not realistically possible. There's no way we can have enough dedicated GM's. And I mostly thought GM's were around to settle emergencies like held up matches. I like your proposed responsibilities sinewav, but I think GM's should also overlap Team Leaders if they are available, to start the match and if they're not, Team Leaders should go a head and start it or if they can't they ask for help on the IRC and someone comes.

There should also be a set guideline on starting matches too! Both team captains need to agree that they are ready, then both need to confirm the round is going to start and then a last "STARTING NOW" confirmation. Both Team Leaders and Global Moderators should have a specific method to follow so we have a standard to avoid confusion.

I think the strong sentiment comes from the last quarterly votes and realistic need for GM's from the previous posts. Also I think electing them isn't going to be that complicated. I think they should request it on the forums, here. Such as in the "Ladle 30" thread or the "rule discussion" thread and then we add them to the vote. A simple explanation on the guidelines on how we decide GM's should be written, too.

Realistically, 4 GM's can also be enough for a 32 bracket if most of them can moderate more than two matches and the other half the Team Leaders handle on their own. Then move on once the match has started. So we only need 2-3 at best for any normal Ladle.

[Cody <3]

What about verified Team Leaders???

You know give us a test of what commands that we need to know?

I personally think these commands cover Team Leader Position.

/lock - locks team
/unlock - unlocks team
/invite <Player name> - Invites a player to play with you
/uninvite <Player name> - Uninvites a player and kicks him/her off team
/vote suspend/kick <player name> - kicks an annoying spec that wont talk in /team
/team - talks to teams
/teams - shows positions
/players - who's logged in
/shuffle # - shuffles to a position

/admin VOTES_CANCEL - Cancel all polls
/admin Start_new_match - Starts new match
/admin TEAM_NAME_1 <Name(score)> - renames teams and score
/admin TEAM_NAME_2 <Name(score)> - renames teams and score
/admin op <player> <optional access level> - OPs a player to team leader
/admin deop <player> - can deop player back to normal

[epsy]

This is probably still valid.

[sinewav]

There's no way we can have enough dedicated GM's. And I mostly thought GM's were around to settle emergencies like held up matches.

Thanks for pointing out there should be some overlap of responsibilities. It's true, at least in the beginning, Team Leaders will still be on their own and must start matches and resolve conflicts as we do already. But after a few months, when the GM plan has proven itself, the GM's can start the matches following the protocol you outlined.

As for voting I doubt unanimous would work, just take the 3 (in this case) that have the most votes

I think you're right. A unanimous vote would be ideal, but I don't know how realistic it is. I'm going to back "simple majority" as the method to decide. If that proves to be ineffective, then we can vote for "unanimous vote" later, eh?