G2A Many GEOs
SHARE
TWEET

Untitled

hockeygoalie5 Jul 8th, 2017 211 Never
Not a member of Pastebin yet? Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!
  1. [b]xales[/b]: ~meeting start Staff Meeting
  2. [b]Botwinder Mk.II[/b]: Your meeting __**Staff Meeting (2017-07-08)**__ has started, you can follow the minutes here: <http://botwinder.info/meetings/274952400358473728/Staff%20Meeting/meeting?date=2017-07-08_00>
  3. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: nice
  4. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: So Daan's gonna start off with something
  5. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: <@264899825793761302>
  6. [b]Daaneesh[/b]: Yes hai
  7. [b]xales[/b]: (do meeting topic on notes btw)
  8. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: yes
  9. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Let's use the bot
  10. [b]Daaneesh[/b]: I would like to formally welcome our two newest mods! <@113451421348745216> <@139287894119546880>  You guys are both doing excellent jobs and I know I look forward to working more with you and seeing what you bring to this community <33
  11. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Congratulations modlings. You're now mods.
  12. [b]F-Tang Steve[/b]: Thank you!
  13. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Etc. etc. etc.
  14. [b]xales[/b]: ~meeting topic Welcoming new staff
  15. [b]Serveris[/b]: o/
  16. [b]Botwinder Mk.II[/b]: New topic: **Welcoming new staff**
  17. [b]xales[/b]: (do that btw)
  18. [b]Daaneesh[/b]: Ah thanks
  19. [b]Daaneesh[/b]: XD
  20. [b]Dadgor[/b]: <@139287894119546880> makes me mad, actually.
  21. [b]Daaneesh[/b]: Pff
  22. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: ~meeting idea Do more hazing.
  23. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: wow
  24. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: It ignored me
  25. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: REVOLT
  26. [b]Dadgor[/b]: He uses the take button, but ignores it when I'm using it.
  27. [b]Dadgor[/b]: >:(
  28. [b]xales[/b]: It's silent Crush.
  29. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: oh
  30. [b]Serveris[/b]: Yeah, like literally
  31. [b]xales[/b]: it's on the page though
  32. [b]Serveris[/b]: All of you
  33. [b]Serveris[/b]: tickets when
  34. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: I used to use the take button
  35. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Then the other staff broke me out of it
  36. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Because none of them used it
  37. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: It's a vicious cycle.
  38. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: >.>
  39. [b]F-Tang Steve[/b]: I think we're getting off topic.
  40. [b]Paradoxon[/b]: I do ,_,
  41. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: Alright
  42. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: Now
  43. [b]Daaneesh[/b]: *yells at all the staff*
  44. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: <@263552026791641098> youre up
  45. [b]Daaneesh[/b]: Use the take botton
  46. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: ~meeting agreed
  47. [b]Botwinder Mk.II[/b]: Use this command with the following arguments:
  48.   `~meeting start meetingName` - Start a new meeting with a name - please do not use any date in it, this will be added for you.
  49.   `~meeting topic message` - Set a topic for this section of the meeting.
  50.   `~meeting info message` - Add a simple info message into the minutes.
  51.   `~meeting idea message` - Add an idea into the minutes.
  52.   `~meeting agreed message` - Add an agreement message into the minutes.
  53.   `~meeting action message` - Add an action point into the minutes, this expects some mentioned people as to who is supposed to complete this.
  54.   `~meeting end` - End the meeting and post a link to the minutes.
  55.   `~meeting undo` - Undo the previous command (except `end`, that's final!)
  56. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: ~meeting agreed I also welcome them.
  57. [b]xales[/b]: Okay, so.
  58. [b]xales[/b]: ~meeting topic Restructuring developers
  59. [b]Botwinder Mk.II[/b]: Topic changed from: _"Welcoming new staff"_
  60. [b]New topic[/b]: **Restructuring developers**
  61. [b]xales[/b]: So, <@98698291042070528> and I came up with this idea around the same time.
  62. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: <@&257286548947599371>
  63. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: This concerns y'all the most
  64. [b]xales[/b]: But, as you all have no doubt noticed, most of our developers pretty much serve in a repository management role, approving PRs and commenting on code and, sometimes, working on some more isolated things on their own.
  65. [b]xales[/b]: Which has resulted in a lot of features making it in over time, but a lot of lesser items never getting done, like bugfixing, because it's not "interesting" and a lot of stuff isn't visible to anyone who doesn't have some modicum of server permissions.
  66. [b]xales[/b]: So, here's what our idea is:
  67. [b]xales[/b]: We're going to introduce a "maintainer" role, which is akin to "senior staff" for developers.
  68. [b]xales[/b]: All of the current developers will be grandfathered into this role.
  69. [b]xales[/b]: It's more of a "manage the repo and direction of the codebase as code," mostly what developers actually do now.
  70. [b]xales[/b]: Server permissions will remain everything (admin) but banning.
  71. [b]xales[/b]: They will gain repository admin access, which allows them to merge PRs at their discretion, rather than waiting for approvals, but common sense is important: obviously get others to review stuff, but if it's one string changing and not controvertial, just merge it, whatever.
  72. [b]xales[/b]: There will still be a developer role, but we can be more open with it because it will have less power.
  73. [b]xales[/b]: They will have repository merge ability, but only with approvals, using GitHub's new system. So 2 devs can merge something, without a maintainer.
  74. [b]xales[/b]: But they need to respect DNM and such, as now, as really all should.
  75. [b]xales[/b]: They'll have moderator on the server, more or less, but eventually will just have VV and aghost.
  76. [b]xales[/b]: That said, admins or maintainers can give them more permissions temporarily if they need it to debug stuff.
  77. [b]Dadgor[/b]: Would these new developers have a server rank?
  78. [b]xales[/b]: Yes.
  79. [b]F-Tang Steve[/b]: If their job isn't general maintainance, what is their job?
  80. [b]xales[/b]: That's my spiel on it I think, what do you guys think?
  81. [b]Techhead[/b]: So basically mods-for-development like mods are junior admins.
  82. [b]Dadgor[/b]: Which server perms would they have?
  83. [b]Daaneesh[/b]: I like it
  84. [b]mkalash[/b]: How does this restructure encourage bugfixing and the sort?
  85. [b]xales[/b]: The intention of the role is to work more on actual features, to recognize their contributions and bring them "in" in stuff a bit more, but they will have some duty to actually _work_ on stuff.
  86. [b]xales[/b]: aka being inactive you'll lose dev thing.
  87. [b]xales[/b]: My hope is to have a weekly update for/from them of "here's what we'd like to get done, here's what's being worked on."
  88. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Get them while they're young
  89. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: And rope them in
  90. [b]F-Tang Steve[/b]: Oh, so if you want to contribute but don't want to be in charge of working with other people's code if you don't want to?
  91. [b]xales[/b]: Yes.
  92. [b]F-Tang Steve[/b]: Would they be obligated to follow the suggestions of the head dev?
  93. [b]xales[/b]: Also, it'll be a pure meritocracy: people can apply for developer, but maintainer is a permanent (unless kicked for inactvitiy/bad behavior or retire) and "meritocracy."
  94. [b]xales[/b]: <@113451421348745216> Suggestions regarding what?
  95. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: ~meeting info Grandfather in all Developers to the new "Maintainer" role, and introduce Developer as a suboordinate rank for helping introduce people to the Dev Team.
  96. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: (Do undo if you can word it better xales)
  97. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: (thnx)
  98. [b]xales[/b]: <@147192778659594240> 👍🏻
  99. [b]mkalash[/b]: Will we assign bugs and things to devs, to make sure they're working on things that need done? I still don't see how giving more contirbutors a staff role will change that they work on?
  100. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: I personally think this would be great, and hopefully would generate more people to come forward and help with the codebase (especially since we just lost like half the dev team >.>)
  101. [b]Daaneesh[/b]: ^
  102. [b]F-Tang Steve[/b]: You mentioned having a weekly "we'd like to get X done" thing. Would people in the developer role be obligated to do those things or are they still free to code whatever they feel like?
  103. [b]Dadgor[/b]: What's the current application process to become a dev?
  104. [b]F-Tang Steve[/b]: *obligated or pressured
  105. [b]xales[/b]: <@138852290399305729> I think encouraging that would be nice, but self-assignment would be good too. Some people want to do that already; Ravensdale is a good example, he doesn't want to review code as much or isn't as comfortable there, but perfectly able to triage issues and work on stuff.
  106. [b]xales[/b]: <@113451421348745216> They're not obligated to do it, but I think people will step up to it somewhat on their own if it's the environment of "we're the dev team, this is what we want to work on, let's do it" kind of thing.
  107. [b]xales[/b]: Also, people seeking out the role can use the list to make more visible changes and get in that habit.
  108. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: ~meeting info Focused more on smaller things, not neccessarily code review but smaller functions of the Dev Team.
  109. [b]mkalash[/b]: So these weekly updates will contain high-priority issues that we'd have some semblance of expectation that devs will tackle?
  110. [b]Dadgor[/b]: How would one apply to the new developer title? What kind of perms do they get on the server?
  111. [b]xales[/b]: <@183915795963707392> Right now there's just a subforum, I'm going to look into how to change it up if at all though.
  112. [b]F-Tang Steve[/b]: What will this enable the average coder to do that they aren't already able? Any VV stuff can be done on test servers etc. as a part of the regular development process.
  113. [b]xales[/b]: <@183915795963707392> I addresses permissions earlier; right now it'd be moderator roughly, but really all they should have is VV and aghost.
  114. [b]mkalash[/b]: ^ Close issues/merge bugfixes @(steve)
  115. [b]Techhead[/b]: <@183915795963707392> Current process is that you submit an application and Devs look over your github code history and some of your comment history and think about it and vote on accepting apps.
  116. [b]Dadgor[/b]: Mhm, I see. Sorry, I might didn't catch it.
  117. [b]Daaneesh[/b]: '
  118. [b]Dadgor[/b]: <@150453627440332800> Gotcha.
  119. [b]Dadgor[/b]: So for new devs it would be an easier process now?
  120. [b]xales[/b]: <@138852290399305729> Basically, yes; for developers specifically, but anyone can work on it, and that's a great way to get and keep the role; work off the list, make good code, get it in, keep doing it.
  121. [b]mkalash[/b]: this updates will be public, then? (I would support that)
  122. [b]xales[/b]: <@113451421348745216> True, but a lot of stuff isn't obivous, or something breaks on live server and hard to reproduce on test server without logs or VV or something.
  123. [b]xales[/b]: <@138852290399305729> yep!
  124. [b]mkalash[/b]: Will there be a dev->maintainer process?
  125. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: It's on merit
  126. [b]xales[/b]: <@113451421348745216> Recent excellent examples are <@152473692805267456> working on overmap, and <@258782922595631104> working on deity; welp at least already had the necessary access, but without it would have been a bitch.
  127. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: you do good good for a while you can get boosted
  128. [b]xales[/b]: <@138852290399305729> more like the old dev process.
  129. [b]F-Tang Steve[/b]: So if the thing they gain the ability to do <@138852290399305729> is code review, why is the role intended to be for those who don't want to have to review code?
  130.  
  131. Additionally, will this put more expectation on the maintainer dev position to be prompt with reviews of code?
  132. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: I assume we'll be quick to give anyone who abuses VV for metagaming the boot?
  133. [b]xales[/b]: <@147192778659594240> Yep, as with any other rank.
  134. [b]xales[/b]: It's a tool they should seldom use, so if there's hints of misusing, addressing it quickly would be good.
  135. [b]TheWelp[/b]: Oh god debugging deity wo server side VV would be hell
  136. [b]xales[/b]: <@113451421348745216> I hope so.
  137. [b]mkalash[/b]: Code review if they want it, in order to move things along, but mostly closing/labelling/sorting through issues
  138. [b]xales[/b]: Developers can and should review code, but have no obligation to do so.
  139. [b]mkalash[/b]: I think is mostly the benefit
  140. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Wouldn't it make more sense to swap the titles then
  141. [b]xales[/b]: Maintainers have some expectation of that.
  142. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: If the Developers are literally just doing maintenance
  143. [b]F-Tang Steve[/b]: If people aren't reviewing code sufficiently frequently, would they risk being moved from maintainer dev to normal dev?
  144. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Messing with tags, doing small fixes, etc.
  145. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Then shouldn't *they* be the Maintainer?
  146. [b]xales[/b]: <@147192778659594240> Well, that's just one thing, that's not the main thing, but it enables that.
  147. [b]Pobiega[/b]: Maintainer is a coding term.
  148. [b]Chike101[/b]: who maintains the maintainers
  149. [b]mkalash[/b]: No, because xales says the devs are contributors, not reviewers; maintainers are reviewers
  150. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Fair enough.
  151. [b]mkalash[/b]: they just can if they want
  152. [b]F-Tang Steve[/b]: I agree with crushtoe that they should be seperate things so someone can be both or either, rather than a tiered system.
  153. [b]mkalash[/b]: with more scrutiny
  154. [b]Paradoxon[/b]: *raises hand*
  155. [b]mkalash[/b]: I think it's assumed that maintainers are also devs
  156. [b]xales[/b]: ^
  157. [b]mkalash[/b]: hi paradoxon
  158. [b]F-Tang Steve[/b]: Being a normal dev is like "I'm making features and occasionally reviewing stuff" while maintainer dev is more like "I'm mostly going to be reviewing things"
  159. [b]Paradoxon[/b]: Do we really need to use the term "maintainer" tho
  160. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Dev Sr.
  161. [b]Paradoxon[/b]: I mean, we're starting to have quite some overlapping in our ranks' names
  162. [b]Techhead[/b]: The term is provisional AFAIK.
  163. [b]Serveris[/b]: Question. Where will the lore admin fall on this new ranking system?
  164. [b]F-Tang Steve[/b]: Reviewer is a less confusing term or something as we already have maintainer as a part of another official title.
  165. [b]Paradoxon[/b]: Comm. Mod/Mod, Lore Maintainer/Code Maintainer...
  166. [b]Daaneesh[/b]: I agree with Para
  167. [b]xales[/b]: <@215204677308907520> It's appropriate to the industry, and people who are familiar will have some understanding natively; Head and I also came up with the same name for the same thing independently, too, which makes me think it's kind of in the right direction.
  168. [b]mkalash[/b]: Maintainer is literally the industry term
  169. [b]xales[/b]: I'm not sold on it if there's a better suggestion though.
  170. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: ~meeting idea Replace "Developer" in the new system with "Code Monkey"
  171. [b]xales[/b]: <@139287894119546880> Lore admin is totally separate.
  172. [b]Daaneesh[/b]: ^
  173. [b]Daaneesh[/b]: <@147192778659594240>
  174. [b]Chike101[/b]: code monkey get up get coffee, code monkey go to job
  175. [b]Dadgor[/b]: Senior Developer would work.
  176. [b]Chike101[/b]: Senior Developer sounds good to me
  177. [b]Serveris[/b]: I've seen PRs flagged for needing lore review in the past.
  178. [b]Paradoxon[/b]: Senior Dev sounds better to me, and it keeps in line with our naming scheme
  179. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: ~meeting idea Alternatively, as suggested by Dragor, go with Senior Developer instead of Maintainer.
  180. [b]mkalash[/b]: There's an unwritten expectation that devs don't merge things that affect lore without the loremin's approval
  181. [b]mkalash[/b]: but technically nothing saying we can't
  182. [b]xales[/b]: ^ discretion is important
  183. [b]F-Tang Steve[/b]: Yeah, I've always been asked about my dionaea changes.
  184. [b]mkalash[/b]: it's more of an "I'm not comfortable with doing this without getting a glance from somebody in charge of that area"
  185. [b]xales[/b]: I'd expect, for example, maintainers/senior devs to have a good understanding of controvertial/DNM/lore approval needed.
  186. [b]spooky[/b]: @here This is entirely related to dev roles and their powers - blockers for specific PRs like "contentious" or "needs lore" etc are unchanged, and not part of the discussion.
  187. [b]xales[/b]: Whereas developers who just want to write code don't need as much involvement on such stuff.
  188. [b]Serveris[/b]: Right, that doesn't leave much room for oversight, then. Thank you for clearing that up <@263552026791641098> <@138852290399305729>
  189. [b]Botwinder Mk.II[/b]: <@138852290399305729> and <@263552026791641098> received a _thank you_ hamster!
  190. [b]Techhead[/b]: Species changes are the strictest in practice.
  191. [b]Snapshot[/b]: Sorry I was really tired and overslept
  192. [b]Snapshot[/b]: Hi
  193. [b]Chike101[/b]: ayy
  194. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: wow late devs
  195. [b]Daaneesh[/b]: Heya Snappy Turtle <3
  196. [b]F-Tang Steve[/b]: Will this increase the quantity of code that senior devs are expected to review?
  197. [b]Serveris[/b]: I think that's a given.
  198. [b]F-Tang Steve[/b]: Vs. normal devs
  199. [b]Techhead[/b]: But there's also no "is this a Lore change?" guideline.
  200. [b]mkalash[/b]: I guess that's the hope? Having a group of people who are expected to dev will mean more thigns are devved will mean more things to review
  201. [b]xales[/b]: <@113451421348745216> I mean, I don't think much will change, people should still review PRs what come up and look at it; people should review what they want to and feel comfortable with, but the role of maintainer is specifically one of controlling what goes in the repo; they may have more, or less, depending on how independent or careful some of the devs want to be.
  202. [b]F-Tang Steve[/b]: Will senior devs who don't review a sufficient amound of code risk losing their senior title?
  203. [b]xales[/b]: If people go entirely inactive, yes.
  204. [b]xales[/b]: Otherwise, no.
  205. [b]Serveris[/b]: It was agreed it'd be activity based.
  206. [b]Techhead[/b]: Devs currently review all code that gets PR'd, usually at least twice per PR. I don't know if it's really possible for this number to go higher.
  207. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: If you're just sitting there with the title for months nad months and not doing anything you're not gonna stay
  208. [b]xales[/b]: Requiring reviews is a really hard thing to do, because some code takes a long time to get to, it's hard to follow, some people don't want to review code they don't know, etc.
  209. [b]spooky[/b]: <@150453627440332800> That's easy enough. If the lore senior goes "hey we need to discuss the lore viability/changes required for this" on the PR, lore is a blocker for that PR. :B
  210. [b]xales[/b]: That said, using GitHub's "pick a dev and request a review" thing might be worth exploring.
  211. [b]xales[/b]: I'm envisioning developers knowing what maintainer is more familiar with certain things though, and assigning them as a reviewer.
  212. [b]Techhead[/b]: (Speaking of activity, I kinda have something to say post-meeting, so remind me.)
  213. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Uh oh
  214. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: That's never good to hear from a dev
  215. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: :x
  216. [b]spooky[/b]: That relies on the lore senior not being a potato with an agenda, but tbh if you have seniors with problems, that's more of a problem than whether the senior can go "hey don't merge this we need to talk about it."
  217. [b]Serveris[/b]: How so? Like assigning specific senior devs to specific types of issues? <@263552026791641098>
  218. [b]mkalash[/b]: github does offer recommended reviewers, based on who has touched the same files <@263552026791641098>
  219. [b]F-Tang Steve[/b]: So if you have code not being reviewed, you can request a specific person to review it and then they're obligated to do so?
  220. [b]xales[/b]: <@139287894119546880> If you're a dev and see a PR touching lite clients, obviously you'd assign POD, for example, is what I mean.
  221. [b]mkalash[/b]: which is kinda broken since pod has touched literally every file due to line end changes
  222. [b]Serveris[/b]: Right, right.
  223. [b]PsiOmegaDelta[/b]: Only half of them
  224. [b]Daaneesh[/b]: Pod?
  225. [b]Daaneesh[/b]: Oh
  226. [b]xales[/b]: I wouldn't say anyone is "obligated" to do so, but if someone isn't at least saying "nah can't do" to assigned reviews for a while, they'd be at risk of losing the title I think.
  227. [b]Daaneesh[/b]: Nvmd
  228. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Psi wrote all the codebase, don't you know?
  229. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: psi *is* the codebase
  230. [b]F-Tang Steve[/b]: Ok, that makes sense.
  231. [b]PsiOmegaDelta[/b]: About half the files had one file ending and the other half another, I made it consistent
  232. [b]mkalash[/b]: We can't say anything is obligated, honestly...we're volunteers
  233. [b]Apple Master[/b]: You volunteered for the role, if a role has duties, you're obligated to perform them.
  234. [b]Apple Master[/b]: A volunteer job is still a job.
  235. [b]F-Tang Steve[/b]: By obligated, I mean "implied that it's a part of the job they signed up for and if they don't do so they risk being removed for inactivity" sort of deal
  236. [b]Apple Master[/b]: _poofs again_
  237. [b]Apple Master[/b]: ^^
  238. [b]xales[/b]: Yeah. Do you guys have anything else? If so, I can make a followup thread.
  239. [b]Snapshot[/b]: K caught up now
  240. [b]mkalash[/b]: lol
  241. [b]mkalash[/b]: I'd give snapshot a chance
  242. [b]mkalash[/b]: then the rest should probably go into a thread now
  243. [b]Snapshot[/b]: So lemme just try and make sure I'm understanding everything right.
  244. [b]xales[/b]: Okay, followup thread here btw: https://baystation12.net/forums/threads/meeting-followup-maintainer-role.4850/
  245. [b]Snapshot[/b]: These new developers basically are label slaves but it's okay for them to review and merge as well?
  246. [b]xales[/b]: They can merge with another dev's approval, enforced by GitHub's branch protection, basically as now.
  247. [b]xales[/b]: Maintainers will have more discretion because some stuff obviously doesn't need review when it's not contentious (like fixing a typo).
  248. [b]Snapshot[/b]: So basically we'll be able to fastmerge using discretion?
  249. [b]xales[/b]: Pretty much.
  250. [b]xales[/b]: Also, if you guys have any more stuff, let's move over to <#304683341968310272> so they can move on with meeting. :)
  251. [b]Techhead[/b]: And junior devs will also have more stringent activity requirements from what I understand.
  252. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: ~meeting info Followup Thread: https://baystation12.net/forums/threads/meeting-followup-maintainer-role.4850/ (GSF)
  253. [b]Snapshot[/b]: Alright, I was just trying to nail down what exactly the differences were
  254. [b]xales[/b]: (Went a bit over time we had hoped for this.)
  255. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: ~meeting topic Staff Activity
  256. [b]Botwinder Mk.II[/b]: Topic changed from: _"Restructuring developers"_
  257. [b]New topic[/b]: **Staff Activity**
  258. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: Oh yes we're bringing this one up
  259. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: ~meeting idea Fire all staff.
  260. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: ~meeting undo
  261. [b]Botwinder Mk.II[/b]: Removed:
  262. [b]    * **IDEA[/b]:** Fire all staff.
  263. [b]F-Tang Steve[/b]: Is this activity defined as "activity doing staff things" or activity as in "actually playing the game on the server"?
  264. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: So basically, as many have noted now (and in the past since the beginning of time here), we often have people in roles that...don't really do the role they signed up for.
  265. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: I mean activity doing staff things
  266. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: And depending on your role(s) that could mean "being in the game and doing staff things"
  267. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: We often have a section of the staff that gets labelled as "active staff" when really that should be as much of our game admins and mods as possible
  268. [b]Snapshot[/b]: (I have a thing for this btw when you're done tog)
  269. [b]xales[/b]: ~meeting info We often have people in roles that...don't really do the role they signed up for.
  270. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: or even all of them (not counting those who are on LOA)
  271. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: Like I'm not expecting all of you to hop on every single day for 12 hours
  272. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: We all have lives outside of this server and community and that is far more important than anything you will ever do here
  273. [b]Paradoxon[/b]: I'm pleading guilty here. Haven't been on the server for quite a while, although I do try to at least maintain a certain standard on the species maintaining side of my job.
  274. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: But I do expect a certain level of commitment from you if you say "I am Game Staff" here and I end up putting in more hours than you.
  275. [b]Techhead[/b]: Also guilty.
  276. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: IT's good that you acknowledge it though!
  277. [b]spooky[/b]: _eyes <@138852290399305729> <@258782922595631104> mutiny boys?_
  278. [b]F-Tang Steve[/b]: Is there a place that specifically defines the expected duties of each level of staff title?
  279. [b]xales[/b]: <@113451421348745216> Yep! sec
  280. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: We have that indeed
  281. [b]Snapshot[/b]: https://baystation12.net/forums/threads/staff-roster-and-positions.1550/
  282. Baystation 12 Forums
  283. [b]Snapshot[/b]: gottem
  284. [b]Paradoxon[/b]: Honestly it's a mix of RL issues and how the staff's been behaving in the last few monthes. Things have been improving on the latter, so I'll try to put more hours in the server, but frankly I can't promise anything.
  285. [b]TheWelp[/b]: Mutinyyyy
  286. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: Oh yes, stress is a huge factor
  287. [b]Snapshot[/b]: So I do have one thing to bring up in regards to this
  288. [b]Snapshot[/b]: which I think this is a good point to bring up now because the use of this will likely have some contention
  289. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: But please let me, or a senior, know whenever you're feeling ways like that. And go ahead snap
  290. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Devs aren't really quite Game Staff
  291. [b]xales[/b]: I'd also like to recognize that the server can be pretty...demotivating at time, and if people won't be around as much for a time, even if it's "until I'm more feelign it", just make us aware of it, maybe take a leave if it goes on for a few weeks, after more than few months might ask you to consider retiring is all.
  292. [b]Paradoxon[/b]: <@210920426451369984> I did talk to <@264899825793761302> several times about it already :p
  293. [b]Daaneesh[/b]: My DM's are always opened to anyone no matter what
  294. [b]Daaneesh[/b]: And yes you did
  295. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: (wasn't referring to you btw para, she already lemme know)
  296. [b]F-Tang Steve[/b]: ~meeting idea Add the species maintainer position to the staff positions document so their job as a maintainer is defined.
  297. [b]Snapshot[/b]: So Xales and I have been talking for a little while about how to improve some of our in game metrics. One of the things that came up was how do we determine the in game activity of players so we can replace a player age system with an hours played system to make the game a little more friendly to new players who spend a lot of time on server.
  298. [b]Snapshot[/b]: One of the ideas we came up with was to track two things: the amount of time players spend on server and the amount of time they spend active on server (meaning they're doing /something/ it doesn't matter what just not idling)
  299. [b]Snapshot[/b]: This system would extend to staff as well, which means we would have the ability to get metrics on staff activity.
  300. [b]Snapshot[/b]: Regarding how many hours staff are spending in game, and what percentage of those hours are active hours and not idle hours.
  301. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: ~meeting idea In-Game Metrics: Replace tracking time since first login with tracking amount of time spent on-server and time spent active on-server.
  302. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: Which would be a fantastic change
  303. [b]F-Tang Steve[/b]: Who would have access to these metrics?
  304. [b]Paradoxon[/b]: Presumably anyone who has access to player age ?
  305. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: ^
  306. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Anyone able to read notes
  307. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: Same as it is now preferably
  308. [b]Snapshot[/b]: I was thinking to break it down to general totals are available to all game staff, and the expanded metrics (which allows you to look at specific date intervals) would be a little bit more restricted.
  309. [b]mkalash[/b]: Just fyi, having tried to use admin logs alone to try to track hours online: sometimes the server's timestamp is extremely wonky.
  310. [b]TheWelp[/b]: Lol id probably have the highest afk ratio
  311. [b]F-Tang Steve[/b]: Would the system have a way to differentiate between time observing and time playing in a round?
  312. [b]mkalash[/b]: oh and also apparently congrats to snapshot
  313. [b]Snapshot[/b]: We could but we figured the most important metrics were active vs inactive hours.
  314. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: (no welp...you wont..)
  315. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Congrats on Trialmin Snap
  316. [b]Snapshot[/b]: Time spent actively observing is still useful time where they're obviously learning something
  317. [b]Snapshot[/b]: also thanks
  318. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Can we go back to hazing
  319. [b]TheWelp[/b]: Wheres the ice bucket
  320. [b]F-Tang Steve[/b]: I would argue that for new players, they should be expected to have some in game time playing before being able to play things such as command staff.
  321. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: Of course
  322. [b]mkalash[/b]: ~meeting idea Addition to ticket system: count of tickets "missed" while online
  323. [b]mkalash[/b]: did I do that right
  324. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Yeah
  325. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: (yeS)
  326. [b]mkalash[/b]: baller
  327. [b]Snapshot[/b]: Exactly, but I brought this up in regards to staff tracking
  328. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: (Current topic is Staff Activity)
  329. [b]Snapshot[/b]: Because for example
  330. [b]Snapshot[/b]: staff seniormin would be able to see your weekly, daily, monthly, whateverly averages for how long you're online and if you're active
  331. [b]F-Tang Steve[/b]: If we're adding a system to track that kind of thing then, I think that differentiating between observing and playing is important. Even for staff it's a useful metric to have.
  332. [b]mkalash[/b]: Time online - time AFK would be useful to track activity only if used in conjunction with how many tickets were missed while they were online. This would account for staff who AFK but keep an ear out for the bwoink
  333. [b]Snapshot[/b]: <@138852290399305729> AFK isn't afk if you're answering tickets
  334. [b]xales[/b]: Yeah it'll need some tuning, playing in round is good, for observing maybe consider only time seriously AFK (>15 minutes with no input)
  335. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: (Can we do an action thing and say Xales and Snap are on top of this)
  336. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: (So it doesn't float around)
  337. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: ^
  338. [b]xales[/b]: But pushing even one thing reset AFK.
  339. [b]Snapshot[/b]: The way it works is if you're doing literally anything you're not AFK
  340. [b]Snapshot[/b]: and we poll every 10 minutes to see if you've been active during that 10 minute interval
  341. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: ~meeting action <@263552026791641098> and <@139854501107597312> are on redoing time metric tracking.
  342. [b]Snapshot[/b]: Alright, well if everyone's on board, coolio.
  343. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Yeah, I support
  344. [b]Daaneesh[/b]: I already said I'm down, just wondering **when**
  345. [b]Snapshot[/b]: I figured some people might be a bit weird about the info we'd be using
  346. [b]Snapshot[/b]: did tickets get merged btw?
  347. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Nah
  348. [b]Daaneesh[/b]: Not yet
  349. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Moving on, next topic? <@210920426451369984>
  350. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: <@264899825793761302> was gonna say a quick amendment at the end here
  351. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: not for discussion just a reminder
  352. [b]Snapshot[/b]: ( <@138852290399305729> I'll prob take a look locally at some point this weekend)
  353. [b]Daaneesh[/b]: So for awhile now we have had people not participating in votes, most of which are rather important in helping build this community. There have been times when a vote has gone up, and less than half the active staff have participated in it by the time it closes or loses relevance. For recent examples, see: https://baystation12.net/forums/threads/fullmod-serveris6.4715/ - Serveris’ Mod thread which has a total of 11 votes and the ongoing poll for the Tickets system, which has 13 https://baystation12.net/forums/threads/tickets-get-your-tickets-here.4812/ . These sorta votes are the ones that most staff should be involved in - even if they /only/ vote without posting to explain their position.
  354. Even the Head and Senior votes didn’t have full staff participation without a large amount of shoving and reminding people - and they’re arguably the most important decisions staff make as a whole.
  355. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Daan
  356. [b]Daaneesh[/b]: Crush
  357. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Oh wait this is the amendment
  358. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Nevermind
  359. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: There's no topic to changr
  360. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: aaaa
  361. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: ~meeting idea Staff attend to polls better
  362. [b]Snapshot[/b]: <@264899825793761302> one of those votes didn't have an abstain option
  363. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: ^
  364. [b]Snapshot[/b]: It's possible that some staff simply didn't have enough opinion to vote
  365. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Yeah
  366. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: That's true
  367. [b]Snapshot[/b]: actually
  368. [b]Snapshot[/b]: both of them lack abstains
  369. [b]Daaneesh[/b]: Votes shouldn't have an abstain option imo
  370. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: I wouldn't expect Techhead to be well versed in the staff activity of Serveris
  371. [b]Techhead[/b]: As a Dev I feel weird voting on mods and admins.
  372. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: (some things need to abstain otherwise they're just gonna vote random)
  373. [b]Daaneesh[/b]: Especially trialmin/mod/whatever staff votes
  374. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Abstain *has* to be an option
  375. [b]Snapshot[/b]: If you don't have an abstain option, you should probably expect that some people just aren't going to vote
  376. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: Anyways though, just keep it mind to be active on the staff forums at least
  377. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: Moving on
  378. [b]Daaneesh[/b]: ^
  379. [b]Snapshot[/b]: Like I'm not qualified to judge whether serveris should be a fullmod
  380. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: ~meeting topic Trialmin Proposal
  381. [b]Botwinder Mk.II[/b]: Topic changed from: _"Staff Activity"_
  382. [b]New topic[/b]: **Trialmin Proposal**
  383. [b]Paradoxon[/b]: To be honest, you can't expect everyone to vote on stuff when there isn't an abstain option.
  384. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: <@264899825793761302>
  385. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: You can't expect BlueNexus for instance (not calling you out, justthe first community mod I saw) to want to vote on mods
  386. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Anyway
  387. [b]Techhead[/b]: And yeah, do you want to be able to tell the difference between "I saw this and have no opinion" and "I didn't look?"
  388. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: **new topic**
  389. [b]Daaneesh[/b]: I would like to take this opportunity to encourage our older mods to DM me about going for game admin! You guys are active, have a lot of really great ideas that will help with moving this community forward, and I know that a lot of us would love to see you go for game admin :-)
  390.  
  391. Okay so I talked to a couple people about this, and think that it would be a good idea to introduce an interview step. Basically a mod will go to the staff manager asking to go for trialmin, then we would set up a good time for them to join us in a private chat where the seniors and headmin will ask them some questions. The reason why I think we should do this is because then we can get more of a feel as to what they are like, those thoughts that often get voiced during the trialmin vote week only do so on the thread, and the person wanting to go for it does not get the chance to tell you why they aren’t active, or what happened three weeks ago when they messed up (as examples.)
  392. Once the interview is done, the staff manager will then copy it to the thread where the staff can read it and get more of a feel of the mod, and decide from that if they want to vote yes or no.
  393. [b]Snapshot[/b]: I'll call out <@152473692805267456> though :^)
  394. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Dan
  395. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: pls
  396. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Use meeting info
  397. [b]Daaneesh[/b]: ~meeting infor trialmin proposal
  398. [b]Botwinder Mk.II[/b]: Use this command with the following arguments:
  399.   `~meeting start meetingName` - Start a new meeting with a name - please do not use any date in it, this will be added for you.
  400.   `~meeting topic message` - Set a topic for this section of the meeting.
  401.   `~meeting info message` - Add a simple info message into the minutes.
  402.   `~meeting idea message` - Add an idea into the minutes.
  403.   `~meeting agreed message` - Add an agreement message into the minutes.
  404.   `~meeting action message` - Add an action point into the minutes, this expects some mentioned people as to who is supposed to complete this.
  405.   `~meeting end` - End the meeting and post a link to the minutes.
  406.   `~meeting undo` - Undo the previous command (except `end`, that's final!)
  407. [b]Daaneesh[/b]: ... Dammit
  408. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: No not like that
  409. [b]Snapshot[/b]: meeting infor
  410. [b]Daaneesh[/b]: Shhhh
  411. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: To say what your proposal is
  412. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: A summary
  413. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: ^
  414. [b]Paradoxon[/b]: Okay, I kinda want to add a topic for the end of the meeting btw.
  415. [b]Daaneesh[/b]: ~meeting info introducing interviews for trialmins.
  416. [b]Snapshot[/b]: like
  417. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: (thats fine, PM it to me real quick)
  418. [b]Snapshot[/b]: yeah like that
  419. [b]Daaneesh[/b]: Anyways
  420. [b]Daaneesh[/b]: thoughts
  421. [b]Daaneesh[/b]: Concerns
  422. [b]Daaneesh[/b]: Anything
  423. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: If no one has any issues we're gonna go ahead and implement
  424. [b]Serveris[/b]: About trialmins?
  425. [b]Daaneesh[/b]: ^
  426. [b]Daaneesh[/b]: Yeah
  427. [b]Serveris[/b]: Sounds good.
  428. [b]Snapshot[/b]: I have a question
  429. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Trialmins are the worst people in existance
  430. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Let's can them
  431. [b]Daaneesh[/b]: This won't affect anyone that currently has a vote up
  432. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: This wouldn't effect current trial votes and trials
  433. [b]Snapshot[/b]: are these interviews only for the staff senior or would they be included as part of the initial trial vote for admin review?
  434. [b]Daaneesh[/b]: Wow Tog,outta my head >: (
  435. [b]Daaneesh[/b]: They would be posted on the trialmin thread once that is made
  436. [b]Snapshot[/b]: 👍
  437. [b]Daaneesh[/b]: For those that are voting to look
  438. [b]spooky[/b]: The proposed flow is pretty much
  439. [b]Snapshot[/b]: ~meeting info logs from trial interviews would be part of the initial trial vote for admin review
  440. [b]spooky[/b]: "Hi I want to be a trialmin"
  441. "Okay -> Interview"
  442. **Vote with attached interview log**
  443. [b]Daaneesh[/b]: mod comes to staff man
  444. asks for interview
  445. staff man sets up
  446. logs and vote go up
  447. current mins votes
  448. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: wow
  449. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: ~meeting info mod comes to staff man
  450. asks for interview
  451. staff man sets up
  452. logs and vote go up
  453. current mins votes
  454. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Eh
  455. [b]Snapshot[/b]: tfw all it'll say is "mod comes to staff man"
  456. [b]Snapshot[/b]: :^)
  457. [b]Daaneesh[/b]: The reason (as stated) is because it will give the votees a better idea as to who they are voting for
  458. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: ~meeting agreed I, <@147192778659594240>, Son of Tillius, can agreeto it to the point of "It won't hurt."
  459. [b]Daaneesh[/b]: xD
  460. [b]Daaneesh[/b]: Alright well if no objections, I will have that implemented
  461. [b]Daaneesh[/b]: And we can move on
  462. [b]Daaneesh[/b]: To next topic
  463. [b]Pobiega[/b]: I get the feeling of thats not how meeting agreed is supposed to be used :p
  464. [b]Serveris[/b]: 👍
  465. [b]Pobiega[/b]: bur rather "it was agreed upon by the meeting"
  466. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Well how do *you* think it should work?
  467. [b]Daaneesh[/b]: <@210920426451369984>
  468. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: I *am* the meeting
  469. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: Yep
  470. [b]Serveris[/b]: I don't think crush should be touching things
  471. [b]xales[/b]: ~meeting undo
  472. [b]Serveris[/b]: Moving on
  473. [b]Botwinder Mk.II[/b]: Removed:
  474. [b]    * **Agreed[/b]:** I, __Crushtoe__, Son of Tillius, can agreeto it to the point of "It won't hurt."
  475. [b]xales[/b]: Guys lets not fuck with the meeting bot.
  476. [b]Daaneesh[/b]: ^
  477. [b]xales[/b]: It's useful if we use it properly. :|
  478. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: I mean, we are using it properly
  479. [b]xales[/b]: But I will restrict it to senior staff if you guys can't help yourselves.
  480. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: ~meeting topic Spook's Proposal (Quick)
  481. [b]Botwinder Mk.II[/b]: Topic changed from: _"Trialmin Proposal"_
  482. [b]New topic[/b]: **Spook's Proposal (Quick)**
  483. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: We're not going indepth into this because
  484. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: That's too much and we have a thread
  485. [b]Techhead[/b]: Oh, that proposal.
  486. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: The marine thing?
  487. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: but I want to see where staff currently stand on the Proposal
  488. [b]Daaneesh[/b]: I like it
  489. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: The thing where it redoes how the torch is structured yes
  490. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: ~meeting info Restructure Torch Crew.
  491. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: As in
  492. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: "for/against"
  493. [b]F-Tang Steve[/b]: I like it as long as we don't remove NT
  494. [b]Paradoxon[/b]: Hasn't everything been said about it already ?
  495. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Remind me of the current version of it?
  496. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: so we can actually get the work underway to yknow change it
  497. [b]IRCBridge[/b]: **<NanoTrasen_Inc>** Remove them if its called.
  498. [b]Techhead[/b]: My opinion: Hurry it up already. For.
  499. [b]Serveris[/b]: It's interesting, but I think it needs to be polished more.
  500. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: Para it's been cold for a bit
  501. [b]Paradoxon[/b]: <@113451421348745216> Funnily, I'd like it if we *did* remove NT :p
  502. [b]IRCBridge[/b]: **<NanoTrasen_Inc>** Did we *did* specify the same, maybe.
  503. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: And I wanna make sure all the staff who voted "Yes with changes" are ok now
  504. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: I don't remember what the current state of it is
  505. [b]Daaneesh[/b]: Awe don't remove NT (but I like it)
  506. [b]IRCBridge[/b]: **<NanoTrasen_Inc>** Awe <3.
  507. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Is the Expeditionary Corps still restricted to certain jobs?
  508. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: Ok so basically EC becomes more specialized, marines are gone, fleet becomes the default fellas, EC gets science roles, civs get some engie roles,
  509. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: No crush
  510. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: So the EC can still be the do-all?
  511. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: I mean there's a few things they can't do, fleet too.
  512. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: I'd rather EC be everything
  513. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: should be yeah
  514. [b]Serveris[/b]: I'd rather see marines folded into the fleet.
  515. [b]Techhead[/b]: Hey, I was in the "Why have NT on the Torch? Why not some fresh other corp?" camp last year.
  516. [b]IRCBridge[/b]: **<NanoTrasen_Inc>** Start mining corp.
  517. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: Like RD EC can't be
  518. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: That way you don't have to explain to players why they're not able to do a job
  519. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: "It could be player age, branch, rank,
  520. [b]xales[/b]: Are we shuffling the idea of marines into fleet still? People will be explosive because "muh marines" when they can't click the branch in-game any more.
  521. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: "Anything."
  522. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: there's a graph btw
  523. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: "It could be twenty things!"
  524. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: I really don't want to have to hand newbies a graph
  525. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: To explain how they can access a job
  526. [b]Snapshot[/b]: TBH people are going to be upset no matter what we do.
  527. [b]Techhead[/b]: I'd personally like to see Marines exist as part of the Fleet IC, but absent from the Torch itself.
  528. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: That's for us
  529. [b]Paradoxon[/b]: I like having NT in the current setup, but a setup in which EC is in Research makes NT completely redundant and eventually harmful to the setting's cohesion, in my humble opinion.
  530. [b]IRCBridge[/b]: **<NanoTrasen_Inc>** Bad enough to use their cohesion.
  531. [b]Serveris[/b]: <@263552026791641098> I feel like that's the best option if we absolutely have to have major changes to marines.
  532. [b]Snapshot[/b]: So might as well do what we as staff want to do.
  533. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: TEch thats the plan
  534. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: I'd rather there be *a* branch that people can just sit in
  535. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: And do whatever
  536. [b]Serveris[/b]: You mean civilian?
  537. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Regarding job availability
  538. [b]Snapshot[/b]: Also I still kind of don't want EC in research either.
  539. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Civilians can't go Surgeon
  540. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Or Security
  541. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: They need to be
  542. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: in some form
  543. [b]xales[/b]: I mean, fundamentally branch isn't a big deal, ranks will be a thing on whatever branch, etc.
  544. [b]Serveris[/b]: They can be xenosurgeons.
  545. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: We can work on it though
  546. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: But EC needs Science to do Away Missions and shit
  547. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Having to explain to players why you can't pick that unless you're a branch in a specific rank
  548. [b]xales[/b]: I don't see anything gained by having a "just pick this branch if you're confused by branches" thing.
  549. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: And why this rank and branch can't do X
  550. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: Preferably with a policy Im gonna write up that AMs need to be a mix of NT/EC
  551. [b]F-Tang Steve[/b]: Yeah, I think the generic titles should be allowed by contractors.
  552. [b]Snapshot[/b]: just make like a new "desginated redshirt" role for science
  553. [b]xales[/b]: If they can't handle that they probably can't handle the server in general, tbh. :|
  554. [b]Paradoxon[/b]: Oh, don't misunderstand me: I think putting the EC in Research is a good move. They're on the Torch for research, after all. *But* it just makes NT pointless.
  555. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: And if you want to do Y, you need to switch rank *again*
  556. [b]IRCBridge[/b]: **<NanoTrasen_Inc>** Anyone *but* .
  557. [b]Techhead[/b]: Do you want civilian security officers? (I did suggest forensics, though)
  558. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: *And* branch
  559. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: I want EC to be left as they are in all fields
  560. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: Crush write in the thread pls
  561. [b]Serveris[/b]: Tbh, when I first saw all the Torch shit, I thought the EC would be doing all the away missions. And effectively everything NT does now.
  562. [b]IRCBridge[/b]: **<NanoTrasen_Inc>** The page is effectively that in.
  563. [b]Serveris[/b]: Leaving me to wonder what the fuck they're even there for.
  564. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Thread link please
  565. [b]Snapshot[/b]: If you want EC in away missions just make like a mission supervisor or something?
  566. [b]Snapshot[/b]: Or research supervisor
  567. [b]Serveris[/b]: I've proposed this.
  568. [b]Snapshot[/b]: basically just someone to tattle to the captain :^)
  569. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: ~meeting agreed We need to discuss this: https://baystation12.net/forums/threads/proposal-sign-my-petition.4521/ more
  570. [b]Serveris[/b]: People don't want any power taken from NT.
  571. [b]IRCBridge[/b]: **<NanoTrasen_Inc>** Taken over and I dont really.
  572. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: EC should -be- the away missions
  573. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: not an extra to it
  574. [b]Snapshot[/b]: If you want EC to be the away missions then NT shouldn't -be- on the ship.
  575. [b]Serveris[/b]: Tell the die hard NT players that.
  576. [b]Techhead[/b]: And again, I was in the "Why have NT on the Torch? Why not some fresh other corp?" camp last year.
  577. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: I dont want NT there 😦
  578. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: aw
  579. [b]Daaneesh[/b]: We love NT
  580. [b]F-Tang Steve[/b]: the point of NT is to let civilians in science
  581. [b]Serveris[/b]: Thank you whoever killed the bot.
  582. [b]Paradoxon[/b]: Uh, what's happening with our logs
  583. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: There would still be civvies in science
  584. [b]Snapshot[/b]: I'm deleting NT markovs
  585. [b]Chike101[/b]: generally I'm cool with it as long as NT stays on the ship
  586. [b]Paradoxon[/b]: Oh. Fair enough.
  587. [b]Snapshot[/b]: So these are sensible
  588. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: NT would be replaced with FTU controlling contractors
  589. [b]Serveris[/b]: <@139854501107597312> thank you
  590. [b]Botwinder Mk.II[/b]: <@139854501107597312> received a _thank you_ hamster!
  591. [b]Pobiega[/b]: why is that bot even in #meeting
  592. [b]F-Tang Steve[/b]: Why FTU
  593. [b]Apple Master[/b]: Because it does the logs.
  594. [b]Snapshot[/b]: Because it's useful and it does votes
  595. [b]Chike101[/b]: I'll be sad to see marines go and I wish they could be integrated into the fleet somehow
  596. [b]F-Tang Steve[/b]: Why change from NT
  597. [b]Chike101[/b]: *somehow*
  598. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: BEcause they're underutilized and it makes sense for public contractors to be working for someone that SCG likes because they lobby the shit out of SCG
  599. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: It's just an idea btw
  600. [b]Techhead[/b]: Marines would be a strong contender to come back for ERT.
  601. [b]Snapshot[/b]: Does N-T make it shut up?
  602. [b]Snapshot[/b]: okay
  603. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: Like I said, there's a thread
  604. [b]Snapshot[/b]: use N T or N-T
  605. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: Gotta move on though so we don't get bogged down
  606. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Yeah
  607. [b]Paradoxon[/b]: I just don't get why we try to keep hammering N-T in the setting when we're a) putting EC in Research and b) making EC more civie-friendly
  608. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: We've agreed, it needs more thread discussion
  609. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Moving on
  610. [b]Snapshot[/b]: Well I mean in the lore N T is there because they hugely financed the project.
  611. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: This is something that needs more discussion on the forums
  612. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: So
  613. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: It can always be changed a bit 😉
  614. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: *moving on*
  615. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: anywas
  616. [b]Snapshot[/b]: No lore serves gameplay rah rah >:(
  617. [b]Paradoxon[/b]: It's just going to end up with people going "shaddup I don't work for you !" from one side or the other
  618. [b]Snapshot[/b]: ^^^^^^
  619. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: ~meeting topic Tutorial Projects
  620. [b]Botwinder Mk.II[/b]: Topic changed from: _"Spook's Proposal (Quick)"_
  621. [b]New topic[/b]: **Tutorial Projects**
  622. [b]Snapshot[/b]: HO BOY
  623. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: OOOHHHH BOOYYYYY
  624. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: <@264899825793761302> spiel
  625. [b]Daaneesh[/b]: The plans are pretty much done, just need a few changes, then need to get some help with getting it mapped/coded… etc. If anyone is wanting to help out, please let me know! I’m pretty excited to see how this works out ^.^
  626. Feel free to ask any questions <3
  627. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: That doesn't tell us anything
  628. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: But okay
  629. [b]Daaneesh[/b]: There isn't much to say really
  630. [b]F-Tang Steve[/b]: Would doing the tutorial count as play time for the role time system stuff?
  631. [b]Daaneesh[/b]: I've told people what it is before
  632. [b]Daaneesh[/b]: Just need to get it in
  633. [b]xales[/b]: Maybe post a comment-only link to the doc in staff room?
  634. [b]Snapshot[/b]: If it's in game yes
  635. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: I mean, you haven't done much
  636. [b]xales[/b]: (If you put it here it'll be public, reminder)
  637. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Maybe just a quick summary for official on-the-books
  638. [b]Daaneesh[/b]: <@113451421348745216> I haven't thought of that, but I think it would
  639. [b]Snapshot[/b]: But if it's in game
  640. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Since there's no actual thing in PSF
  641. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Or GSF
  642. [b]Daaneesh[/b]: <@263552026791641098> Ooh good idea
  643. [b]Snapshot[/b]: that's going to be a very interesting can of worms.
  644. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: <@264899825793761302>
  645. [b]xales[/b]: <:canofworms:329730924436652032>
  646. [b]Daaneesh[/b]: I know Xales and <@!201437926691831808> were looking at it earlier and had some ideas
  647. [b]Dadgor[/b]: BTW, I might drop out completely for a while
  648. [b]Daaneesh[/b]: Message me Dadgor
  649. [b]Dadgor[/b]: It's just that Daniel has flu :v
  650. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Daan
  651. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: pls
  652. [b]Dadgor[/b]: And I have flu
  653. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Give us something
  654. [b]Dadgor[/b]: and my wife has flu
  655. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Seriously, I'd like to know what this is
  656. [b]Dadgor[/b]: In short it's flu
  657. [b]Dadgor[/b]: and it sucks
  658. [b]Daaneesh[/b]: Basically it's this
  659. [b]Daaneesh[/b]: New player comes on, gets spawned in and has the option to go through a tutorial. There will be a 'dummy' that will help out with showing how to do things (like equip, take something off someone, writting on paper... etc)
  660. [b]Daaneesh[/b]: I will post a google doc of it in staff
  661. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Setting up supermatters
  662. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: ~meeting info New player comes on, gets spawned in and has the option to go through a tutorial. There will be a 'dummy' that will help out with showing how to do things (like equip, take something off someone, writting on paper... etc)
  663. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: That's good enough for me
  664. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: If that's all
  665. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: <@210920426451369984> Next topic
  666. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: Daan ya good?
  667. [b]Serveris[/b]: This sounds nifty asf.
  668. [b]Daaneesh[/b]: Yes
  669. [b]Snapshot[/b]: My one thing about tutorials though
  670. [b]Snapshot[/b]: there's a fuckton you can do in ss13
  671. [b]Serveris[/b]: If it works.
  672. [b]Snapshot[/b]: not enough to cover everything
  673. [b]Snapshot[/b]: without like huge server bloat
  674. [b]xales[/b]: Don't need everything I think is the idea, just bare minimums.
  675. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: ~meeting topic GAS Contact
  676. [b]Botwinder Mk.II[/b]: Topic changed from: _"Tutorial Projects"_
  677. [b]New topic[/b]: **GAS Contact**
  678. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: <@113451421348745216>
  679. [b]Head[/b]: It need to covver everything anyway
  680. [b]Head[/b]: that just dumb
  681. [b]Head[/b]: Just teach people how to open doors and get dressed
  682. [b]Daaneesh[/b]: New topic, Head
  683. [b]F-Tang Steve[/b]: Ok so, the PR for GAS is on the cusp of making it into the code base and I wanted to go over my plans for the release schedule and stuff.
  684. [b]Head[/b]: Fuk
  685. [b]Head[/b]: u
  686. [b]Head[/b]: I choose my topic
  687. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: k
  688. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Continue, Steve
  689. [b]F-Tang Steve[/b]: I don't want to talk specifics of the event as this will go public, but the gist is that it's going to be a first contact style event where the general events will most likely (if it goes well) be held as canon, though the specific characters involved won't be canon.
  690. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: ~meeting info A first contact style event where the general events will most likely (if it goes well) be held as canon, though the specific characters involved won't be canon.
  691. [b]F-Tang Steve[/b]: This will make it so that characters have a reason to know about these things and make it feel more significant than just plopping them into the server. I've been working on some custom assets and things for it and I'll make a post about the details later in the staff forum.
  692. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: For those not in the know
  693. [b]Daaneesh[/b]: I like it <3
  694. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: I've talked to Steve about it
  695. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: It's great
  696. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Ask Steve about it.
  697. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: Indeed-o
  698. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: Like how we did with the Bologna, it'd be great to get as much of the team together when we do this to help run the event
  699. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: But with more planning
  700. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: And actually testing out things beforehand
  701. [b]F-Tang Steve[/b]: If anyone would like to help, I'm struggling a bit with making a map and could use some advice for that.
  702. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: (It's helpful this is going to the git rather than being loaded in from a private repo lol)
  703. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: I can help with that
  704. [b]F-Tang Steve[/b]: Anyone have any questions before I go on to the next thing about the giant armoured serpentids?
  705. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Nothing.
  706. [b]F-Tang Steve[/b]: Ok, as for release schedule, I'd like to use a step by step system rather than opening them for whitelists etc. at the beginning. This will give some time to moderate the play standards for them without it becoming overwhelming. This is important to make sure that people playing them don't start or pick up bad habits from each other.
  707. [b]Serveris[/b]: Besides me knowing like. Nothing about GAS
  708. [b]Serveris[/b]: Aside from it's apparently a race.
  709. [b]Serveris[/b]: That's literally all I know.
  710. [b]F-Tang Steve[/b]: Some species have things that players do not because it's in the lore, but because they've seen other players do so.
  711. [b]Techhead[/b]: They're giant. They're armored. And they're serpentids.
  712. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: ^
  713. [b]Serveris[/b]: Nice, nice, moving on.
  714. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: They're really cool
  715. [b]F-Tang Steve[/b]: The specific play expectations I have written up in a roleplaying guide seperate from the lore page.
  716. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Their psychology is pretty sweet
  717. [b]Serveris[/b]: Thanks for that.
  718. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: If you enjoy playing diona for seeming alien and not just being a human but furry
  719. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Then you'll probably be interested in GAS
  720. [b]Serveris[/b]: I guess I'll just learn about them like everyone else. 😄
  721. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: We good here?
  722. [b]F-Tang Steve[/b]: So any staff can read it and see if someone is doing something they shouldn't be. It also makes it easier to handle people who do have poor play, as you can quote directly from the document (which will be provided to players) when adressing it.
  723. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: ~meeting info GAS Release Schedule & Roleplay Guide Document
  724. [b]F-Tang Steve[/b]: The big thing about it was I was hoping that there could be an additional component to the whitelisting process in their early release
  725. [b]Snapshot[/b]: I hope GAS isn't some sort of
  726. [b]Snapshot[/b]: sentient gas cloud
  727. [b]Snapshot[/b]: since I already did that :v
  728. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: nah just a abbreviation
  729. [b]F-Tang Steve[/b]: Where, similar to how trialmods work, people can play them and be watched and corrected as they do have a higher skill floor for good play than others
  730. [b]Snapshot[/b]: Oh right
  731. [b]Serveris[/b]: The name is pretty misleading.
  732. [b]Snapshot[/b]: wait I know what it is
  733. [b]Snapshot[/b]: F-Tang is talking about it
  734. [b]Snapshot[/b]: it's obvious
  735. [b]Snapshot[/b]: :^)
  736. [b]F-Tang Steve[/b]:
  737. [b]  attachment[/b]: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/274952400358473728/333341069054050305/ftang_gas_w3_by_striderden-dbbrzim.jpg
  738. [b]Snapshot[/b]: Yep
  739. [b]Serveris[/b]: But now that I think of them as Giant Armored Serpentids, it's obvious, yeah.
  740. [b]Snapshot[/b]: Anyway doing it like that is what I did for the gas clouds F-Tang
  741. [b]Snapshot[/b]: you run the first contact event a few times over the course of a week
  742. [b]Snapshot[/b]: cherry pick your favorite things that happened
  743. [b]Snapshot[/b]: change the names
  744. [b]Snapshot[/b]: then toss it into a current event story
  745. [b]F-Tang Steve[/b]: The actual implimentation of how to acheve this trial for species to be played may need some coding to have it work properly, which I'm happy to work with before they're publicly avaliable.
  746. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: An army of Deputy Maintainers
  747. [b]F-Tang Steve[/b]: I'll also make a detailed post on this when I announce their release schedule officially.
  748. [b]F-Tang Steve[/b]: Any questions about it or comments on my idea to have a trial run before someone makes the whitelist proper?
  749. [b]Chike101[/b]: actually I do have one
  750. [b]Chike101[/b]: Most whitelisted species have a general amount that would be realistic to see on the server at once
  751. [b]Chike101[/b]: How many GAS or nabbers or whatever they are would you see on average on the station, preferably?
  752. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: 2.0
  753. [b]F-Tang Steve[/b]: The job slots that would be avaliable are limited because of their psycology and physiology, similar to how dionaea can't ever play security. When they're released, they will have limited job avaliability which willl be expanded after release. The few slots avaliable to them will artificially limit their numbers on the server and let them grow in a natural way.
  754. [b]F-Tang Steve[/b]: If it becomes an issue, I can code somehting in that limits the total number of players who can play a speceis at any given time.
  755. [b]Chike101[/b]: 👌
  756. [b]Paradoxon[/b]: <@113451421348745216> From experience, there's still going to be a surge of players when they get fully released
  757. [b]xales[/b]: Aside: Might also be worth implementing code restrictions on certain slots. People make mistakes with this sometimes.
  758. [b]Paradoxon[/b]: Will you just let it be or ?
  759. [b]F-Tang Steve[/b]: If there's only 2-3 job slots, they won't take over the server. I'm also expecting the fact they need to have a trial round before they can play independently will help to slow the numbers.
  760. [b]F-Tang Steve[/b]: I'm going to attempt to keep them to a strict standard of play which may loosen in several months once their behaviours have been thuroughly established in server culture.
  761. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: If that's it, fine to move on?
  762. [b]F-Tang Steve[/b]: Yup! That's all I have to talk about them. Feel free to ask me any questions about them or the event in private or in staff room after the meeting.
  763. [b]F-Tang Steve[/b]: Or in the voice chat.
  764. [b]Daaneesh[/b]: ^.^
  765. [b]Serveris[/b]: Sounds good.
  766. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: Alright
  767. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Yep
  768. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Now that we aren't
  769. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: GASsy
  770. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: ~meeting topic What -is- the Torch
  771. [b]Botwinder Mk.II[/b]: Topic changed from: _"GAS Contact"_
  772. [b]New topic[/b]: **What -is- the Torch**
  773. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: Yeah this is gonna be one of those open-ended discussions again
  774. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: A lot of the community, and staff to a degree, have had a *lot* of trouble trying to..define, what the torch is supposed to be because there's either things that aren'tfully implemented, aren't there, or are there but not well done (compared to other parts that are A+)
  775. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: I think this'll in part be helped by Spook's thing
  776. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: In better defining what's going on.
  777. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: We're not all gonna agree entirely on the server direction cause we're incredibly different people but we -should- have an idea of where we want to push the game
  778. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: Oh for sure but that's just a step on a ladder
  779. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: It'll be helping in defining things for players and giving us a clearer idea of the setting
  780. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: But
  781. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: In terms of server development going forward and what we should be focusing on as a priority
  782. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: I think we as a whole need to at least know that kind of thing
  783. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: For me, as I've said over and over and over and over, we need to push the Exploration side of the Torch since we've billed it from the start as an Exploration ship
  784. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: And thus a lot of what we should be working on should be to further that aspect of the game for us
  785. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: But it seems everyone gets hung up on the MilRP vs NT divide rather than actual game development progression
  786. [b]IRCBridge[/b]: **<NanoTrasen_Inc>** On the progression.
  787. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: "here's idea" "MUHHHH FUCK MILRPP" or "MUHH FUCK NT" and then it dies in a sea of constipated shit talking
  788. [b]IRCBridge[/b]: **<NanoTrasen_Inc>** Hit max paynes constipated and you change and they.
  789. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: ~meeting idea Push more exploration as the focus.
  790. [b]Serveris[/b]: Sounds accurate.
  791. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: I do have a suggestion.
  792. [b]xales[/b]: In a similar vein, along with the maintainer/dev split, already said a bit, I'm hoping to have some sort of weekly light-"meeting" thing, that I envision being open publicly at first but _heavily_ moderated, about server direction, both with purely dev stuff as well as overarching things, just to discuss what's in the pipeline and what's been done and stuff.
  793. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: A large issue is that the Torch *relies* on the crew getting their shit together to even get the Torch somewhere that science can work
  794. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Which antags easily derail
  795. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: So my idea is:
  796. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: ~meeting idea At roundstart, the Torch will *always* start over an inferior asteroid; 16x less ore and minerals, but it still has *something* on it for the crew to explore and dig.
  797. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: This means that the crew still has a strong incentive to go elsewhere
  798. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: But that Science isn't screwed if the crew does nothing.
  799. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Exploration can still go on.
  800. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: (that also ties to my idea of making antags faaarrr less important to the round, of it just pulling a few while the important thing is the away mission and objectives the crew can and should be accomplishing)
  801. [b]xales[/b]: ^ yes please
  802. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: Also I dig that Crush
  803. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: It's something I've talked over with some players and they all seem to like it
  804. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: could even have it be a random away mission rather than just asteroid too
  805. [b]F-Tang Steve[/b]: I agree with the asteroid
  806. [b]xales[/b]: <@147192778659594240> that, with a middling probability (15%?) of getting a better rock, so people don't go "lol rock sucks lets move"
  807. [b]F-Tang Steve[/b]: Because then it's safe to mine
  808. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: It keeps a focus on moving the torch being important
  809. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: Mhm
  810. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: But it doesn't screw it all over if no SolGov Pilot wakes up
  811. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Or an antag derails
  812. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Or the crew is lazy
  813. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: I think having actual objectives for the crew themselves to accomplish as part of their expedition once we have AWay missions fully implemented
  814. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Put this all under a big away mission push
  815. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Can we possibly galvanize our benevolent HeadDev <@263552026791641098> into actioning this
  816. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: Mhm
  817. [b]F-Tang Steve[/b]: you should be able to shoot a giant grabber at a good mining asteroid and bring it with you
  818. [b]Techhead[/b]: So... I take it Bridge Officers are unwilling to push overmap buttons?
  819. [b]Chike101[/b]: daily reminder of "what happened to all those away missions that one guy made"
  820. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: Welp still has em I think
  821. [b]xales[/b]: ~meeting action <@263552026791641098> or someone, get Torch to always spawn over asteroid.
  822. [b]Serveris[/b]: Why have they, uh. Never been put in?
  823. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: ~meeting agreed Force <@263552026791641098> or someone to get AMs fully in
  824. [b]Serveris[/b]: I'm gonna go ahead and assume there was a reason.
  825. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: There was a blocker on a map PR
  826. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: I think its still there too
  827. [b]Serveris[/b]: I see.
  828. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: and nothing could be done till after that
  829. [b]xales[/b]: I don't know of any map PRs.
  830. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: and chin was working on some alienium thing
  831. [b]Chike101[/b]: For those who don't know what's a blocker
  832. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: Xales the landmark update thing
  833. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: <@150453627440332800> It's not that their unwilling
  834. [b]xales[/b]: Oh, that.
  835. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: It's just that people stopped playing them
  836. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Command as a whole had a mass extinction
  837. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: The Prespookian Extinction
  838. [b]Serveris[/b]: People realized being an officer actually implied being responsible.
  839. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: Mhm
  840. [b]Techhead[/b]: Even Bridge Officers? Dang.
  841. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: The responsible people became staff
  842. [b]Serveris[/b]: And a ton of them noped the fuck out.
  843. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: And don't have time to run both the game *and* crew
  844. [b]Techhead[/b]: I remember the "only officers are bridge officers" period.
  845. [b]Chike101[/b]: personally the reason I stopped playing officer is because people stopped giving respect to officers
  846. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Which is because we got an explosion in crap ones
  847. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: Mmmhmmm
  848. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: The Post-Raptorian Explosion
  849. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: And the Pre-Spookian Extinction
  850. [b]Chike101[/b]: can we bring raptor back
  851. [b]Chike101[/b]: just bring him back
  852. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: Raptor and I had it good for a while 😦
  853. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: ~meeting idea Force Raptor into un-retirement.
  854. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: Anyways though
  855. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: ~meeting undo
  856. [b]Botwinder Mk.II[/b]: Removed:
  857. [b]    * **IDEA[/b]:** Force Raptor into un-retirement.
  858. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Moving on
  859. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Next topic of serious note or continuation of this
  860. [b]Serveris[/b]: Enforcing the decorum gets dumb too. I tried to NJP a FT because she was being a disobedient little shit over really simple orders one round, and they adminhelped over it.
  861. [b]Serveris[/b]: I actually had mkalash come and start tearing into me over it.
  862. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Yeah
  863. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: So we agree that we're gonna be pushing Exploration for the Torch, and that general style of gameplay, and moving further from the standard of SS13 into our own Bay niche
  864. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: It gets old having the same disobedient shits every round
  865. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: So you just kind of
  866. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: stop
  867. [b]Serveris[/b]: Like. She told the CoS to fuck himself. The SEA to fuck himself.
  868. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: Wow
  869. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: That's a SEA ban there
  870. [b]F-Tang Steve[/b]: I like the standard SS13 though, and so do most of the people who play on the server.
  871. [b]Techhead[/b]: And *mkalash* took her side?
  872. [b]Serveris[/b]: It's bad enough I have to deal with it again the next round. Because there's zero continuity.
  873. [b]Chike101[/b]: make the place more grimdark
  874. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: More field executions
  875. [b]Serveris[/b]: Yes.
  876. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: ~idea More field executions.
  877. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: F-Tang our own niche is still gonna be ss13 but it's not gonna b elike Aurora or /tg/
  878. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: or goon
  879. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: We're yknow
  880. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: Baystation
  881. [b]xales[/b]: We also really need to get working bans for branches and the new roles.
  882. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: lets capitalize on being old and different
  883. [b]xales[/b]: Literally can't do a SEA ban afaik.
  884. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: We're going back to the science roots
  885. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: Xales yeah you can
  886. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: We can xales
  887. [b]Serveris[/b]: Tbh. I do wish we had more scenarios that allowed for summary execution. Like escaping a Hut sentence.
  888. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: gotta do a manual ban
  889. [b]F-Tang Steve[/b]: But moving to an exploration style of gameplay as you're suggesting is a big thing.
  890. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Just with the unban Panel
  891. [b]Serveris[/b]: Or code red.
  892. [b]xales[/b]: Does it _work_?
  893. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: And not the jobban panel
  894. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: Mhm
  895. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Yeah
  896. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: The Jobban Panel needs
  897. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: I've used it
  898. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Reworking
  899. [b]xales[/b]: Interesting, okay.
  900. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: It really does
  901. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: F-Tang I know it is
  902. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: but it's what we have said since
  903. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: A lot of staff tools were built specifically for the Exodus
  904. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: the irst Map Contest
  905. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: As in, space *specifically* hardcoded for fitting Exodus shit
  906. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: The specific jobs Exodus had
  907. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: Mmmhmm
  908. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: Also
  909. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: There being x and y width on a bar of color for the Exodus stuff
  910. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: it's just
  911. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: Look at each of the servers who have become different from SS13
  912. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: whatever
  913. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: from the standard
  914. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: They do **extremely** well
  915. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: I wouldn't say we would become *different*
  916. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Just
  917. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: We're still SS13's base value
  918. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: It's just also
  919. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Hey
  920. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: Not standard Exodus talk and talk and OHSHIT ANTAG
  921. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Exploring shit
  922. [b]xales[/b]: I mean
  923. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: We're doing away missions
  924. [b]Apple Master[/b]: so we're FTL13
  925. [b]xales[/b]: we're a bit different in that we're less memery, more PvE (one day), no syndicate, etc.
  926. [b]xales[/b]: from base SS13 anyway
  927. [b]Chike101[/b]: why AREN'T we FTL13
  928. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: But without ship-to-ship combat that makes FTL fun
  929. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: I think /tg/ is more PvE
  930. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Than us
  931. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: They got Lavaland
  932. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Just saying
  933. [b]Techhead[/b]: I'm in the "bring back syndicate, but make it make sense" camp.
  934. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: ^
  935. [b]Chike101[/b]: please god bring back the syndicate
  936. [b]F-Tang Steve[/b]: What I'm saying is: why do we want to do something taht will alienate a good chunk of our current playerbase in the hopes that it will increase our playercount longerm?
  937. [b]Serveris[/b]: I stick to the fact that depriving us of the means of ever, one day, having ship to ship combat was a bad move.
  938. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: ..Yeah we need to be more like FTL
  939. [b]Serveris[/b]: That could've been interesting.
  940. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: PvE should be a big thing
  941. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: We still can have ship to ship
  942. [b]Serveris[/b]: But no, we had to be a disarmed vessel.
  943. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: The bluespace artillery is there from Raptor as
  944. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: F-Tang we've already alienated those who were against the Torch
  945. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: "No one actually has coded BSA"
  946. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: "So if it's ever coded in"
  947. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: "This'll work"
  948. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: Those who stuck around are still gonna have input in all this
  949. [b]Chike101[/b]: yo for the record the BSA control computer is in the code right now and it's 100% functional
  950. [b]Chike101[/b]: all you have to do is literally map in the computer and we have working BSA
  951. [b]Serveris[/b]: For targeting the ship.
  952. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: And generally every time I've brought my ideas forward in OOC I get a shit ton more "yes daddy pls" rather than "no"
  953. [b]Serveris[/b]: The Torch will literally fire on itself.
  954. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: Also
  955. [b]Chike101[/b]: yeah or away sites or places where antag ships can be
  956. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: For sure
  957. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: Antags all feel like they have to go full morderboney because of how the Torch is different from Exodus and we should push for Antags to be more intwined with the Exploration and AMs and whatnot
  958. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: so that they fit better into the setting rather than just the left overs that may or may not make total sense
  959. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: (How many topics left?)
  960. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: (We're going to General Open after this)
  961. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: If no one else has anything to add though, I thinkwe have a good idea
  962. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Yeah
  963. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: We got ideas of how to make sure the Torch is exploring
  964. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Roundstart rock
  965. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Get away missions in
  966. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Pin everything on xales so he can bug random people to help
  967. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: Mhm mhm
  968. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: ~meeting topic General Discussion
  969. [b]Botwinder Mk.II[/b]: Topic changed from: _"What -is- the Torch"_
  970. [b]New topic[/b]: **General Discussion**
  971. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: Is there anything else anybody wants to bring up?
  972. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: <@215204677308907520> Had something
  973. [b]Chike101[/b]: quick staff question
  974. [b]F-Tang Steve[/b]: I have something after paradoxon is done
  975. [b]Chike101[/b]: Pirate!Torch yes or no
  976. [b]Paradoxon[/b]: I did ? Oh, yeah
  977. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: We shouldn't be focusong on that, no
  978. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: ~meeting info Pirate Torch: y/n
  979. [b]Paradoxon[/b]: Is that, the, uh, end of discussion meeting ?
  980. [b]Paradoxon[/b]: Uh, wait. End of meeting discussion, rather.
  981. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: We're in general discussion now
  982. [b]Paradoxon[/b]: (Tired.)
  983. [b]Paradoxon[/b]: Yeah, so.
  984. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: All of our topics are done
  985. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Order is Chike > Paradoxon > Chaoko for it
  986. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: So it's your turns if you have anything
  987. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: ~meeting info Let's not focus on Pirate Torch. -TOG
  988. [b]Chike101[/b]: wew
  989. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: <@215204677308907520> Your turn.
  990. [b]Paradoxon[/b]: Thanks
  991. [b]Serveris[/b]: <@263552026791641098> how's that custom sprites rework coming?
  992. [b]Serveris[/b]: Sorry. Go ahead.
  993. [b]xales[/b]: <@139287894119546880> Not having a chance to look into any code/server stuff until Monday, but it's on my list!
  994. [b]Paradoxon[/b]: So, uh, do we really need to start using bots for everything ? No offense, but I found the whole thing with people making the meeting's minute through the bot... Kinda pointless ?
  995. [b]Serveris[/b]: my knees hurt from having to suck off <@138852290399305729> every other round to use it
  996. [b]Serveris[/b]: pls help
  997. [b]F-Tang Steve[/b]: I like it because it provides a summary to those wh omiss the meeting
  998. [b]F-Tang Steve[/b]: So they can go back through the logs and read in detail the things they want to know more about
  999. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: ^
  1000. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: It goes well with the meeting logs
  1001. [b]Paradoxon[/b]: Yeah, but, how is it better than doing it through a simple copy/pasta in a text editor
  1002. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: And it reminds us who is specifically in charge of getting something done
  1003. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: That's tedious work
  1004. [b]Paradoxon[/b]: 'Cause the bot just made it more confusing for me tbh
  1005. [b]xales[/b]: Wait until we end the meeting recording, and look at the result.
  1006. [b]xales[/b]: It's _far_ easier to read.
  1007. [b]Paradoxon[/b]: "Tedious"
  1008. [b]F-Tang Steve[/b]: It's harder to coordinate
  1009. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: ~meeting info Sub-topic: Do we really need a bot to do meeting minutes?
  1010. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: also yeah, wait till recording is over to have a bigger picture of how it looks logwise
  1011. [b]Paradoxon[/b]: More tedious than coding a bot, learning all the verbs to use it and make sure you don't do typos so that it understands what you're trying to do ? :p
  1012. [b]xales[/b]: Also: page updates live and we can post it publicly while doing the meeting.
  1013. [b]Chike101[/b]: the bot helped a little bit
  1014. [b]Serveris[/b]: Make the community manager's job to make a transcript.
  1015. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Yeah, bot helped us force things along
  1016. [b]Serveris[/b]: *nodnods.*
  1017. [b]xales[/b]: People will _really like_ the easy-to-read page vs "lol here's a log dump."
  1018. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: ^^^^
  1019. [b]xales[/b]: (wrt posting publicly)
  1020. [b]Paradoxon[/b]: Again
  1021. [b]Paradoxon[/b]: I'm not saying do a simple log dump
  1022. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Updating a minutes thing as we go with a bot is easier than going back through
  1023. [b]Paradoxon[/b]: But having to ask the bot to record " Let's not focus on Pirate Torch. -TOG"...
  1024. [b]Paradoxon[/b]: I mean, really. Text editor, control-c, control-v
  1025. [b]xales[/b]: That's Crush being a bit goofy there, frankly.
  1026. [b]xales[/b]: And while yes, that's possible, it's more work, can't be done as a group, still needs to be formatted and posted...
  1027. [b]xales[/b]: Not sure what the gripe with the bot is. It's like 3 commands you might actually have to use, and you still don't have to use it.
  1028. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Yeah
  1029. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: I'm liking the bot.
  1030. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: It helps us stay moving.
  1031. [b]Paradoxon[/b]: I just noticed Crush jabbing at Daan earlier for not using the bot properly when she was speaking about her topic
  1032. [b]Paradoxon[/b]: And honestly, if I have to learn how to use a bot just to express my ideas in a meeting...
  1033. [b]xales[/b]: I don't really think it was "jabbing," it's a new thing and it's fine to remind staff to use it.
  1034. [b]Paradoxon[/b]: Eh, I'm using jabbing strongly here, yes
  1035. [b]xales[/b]: And saying you have to learn to use the bot to express the idea is patently wrong.
  1036. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: and then we made jokes because infor
  1037. [b]spooky[/b]: classic gas
  1038. [b]xales[/b]: You express the ideas by talking in the meeting, yourself or someone else who wants to record bigger things will do so using the bot.
  1039. [b]xales[/b]: Bot isn't "channel for all conversation."
  1040. [b]Paradoxon[/b]: That's the thing. At that point in the meeting, it feels like Daan was asked to use the bot herself. Maybe it's just me misinterpretating the whole event, but that just itched me.
  1041. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: The meeting minutes is also something we can immediately give to players
  1042. [b]xales[/b]: The idea of meeting minutes is "keep track of bigger important things, like overarching topics, tasks, bigger commentary/ideas, etc." - which we've never had before.
  1043. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: There's no need for a delay as we double-check logs
  1044. [b]xales[/b]: <@215204677308907520> I mean, it's just asking her to record the topic using the bot, because it keeps a list of topics in order.
  1045. [b]Paradoxon[/b]: I'm not debating the use of minutes. It is indeed something we need.
  1046. [b]xales[/b]: ...nothing more than that, at all.
  1047. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: She had just written a spiel and was only reminded so that her spiel was logged
  1048. [b]xales[/b]: <@147192778659594240> actually post-meeting it'll include all the logs too, afaik.
  1049. [b]xales[/b]: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  1050. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Nice
  1051. [b]Paradoxon[/b]: Anyway. I just wanted to express my opinion on that, I'm exhausted and frankly overworked so that might just be me running of the rails.
  1052. [b]xales[/b]: I could ask Rhea to maybe make a way for that not to happen though, shouldn't need to hide logs.
  1053. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: Youre fine dude
  1054. [b]xales[/b]: ^
  1055. [b]spooky[/b]: _pat <@215204677308907520>_
  1056. [b]spooky[/b]: You will be
  1057. [b]spooky[/b]: *okay*
  1058. [b]F-Tang Steve[/b]: Next after meeting topic time?
  1059. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: Anything anyone else wants to add??
  1060. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: So, that's done?
  1061. [b]F-Tang Steve[/b]: I've got one
  1062. [b]xales[/b]: I have a small thing too (<@210920426451369984> y u keep forgetting ;_;)
  1063. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: I have one last thing to say before the meetings officially over so if you got anything now's the time
  1064. [b]xales[/b]: or not
  1065. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: (I didnt forget I was just typign ;_;)
  1066. [b]F-Tang Steve[/b]: There was a vote earlier about making it so that non-staff could apply to be a species maintainer but it hasn't been followed up on yet.
  1067. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: Cause no one is non-staff as maintainer
  1068. [b]F-Tang Steve[/b]: Someone needs to take that job so it's implimented into the system.
  1069. [b]F-Tang Steve[/b]: No, but it lets people become them in the future.
  1070. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: Really thats the only reason
  1071. [b]F-Tang Steve[/b]: Yes, but it was voted in and it should be put in place for the next time a species is being handed off etc.
  1072. [b]Paradoxon[/b]: Steve's right, we need that process to be laid out so that we don't have to rush one next time someone comes up with a species.
  1073. [b]F-Tang Steve[/b]: Or new species
  1074. [b]F-Tang Steve[/b]: I know of at least two other species projects in the works right now.
  1075. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: Also Spooky's been hard at work on the newwiki rather than that
  1076. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: So it's fallen on the back burner
  1077. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: (and I don't think we're gonna add any fully fledged species like GAS and Bologna for a while)
  1078. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: (don't want overbloat)
  1079. [b]F-Tang Steve[/b]: No, but it was voted in and needs to be finalised before it's forgotten entirely.
  1080. [b]xales[/b]: I think it's on the to-do list, just not a priority over stuff like lore wiki.
  1081. [b]xales[/b]: er
  1082. [b]xales[/b]: new wiki, rather
  1083. [b]F-Tang Steve[/b]: This came before that though, and will be forgotten about otherwise.
  1084. [b]xales[/b]: maybe having a public list of stuff that's being done/needs to be done, for everyone not just devs, would be nice. :v
  1085. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: Actually new wiki's been a thing since April
  1086. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: in some form or fashion
  1087. [b]F-Tang Steve[/b]: Fair enough.
  1088. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: and having an actual, well-done wiki is more important than an application process for roles that aren't even opening
  1089. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: (unless someone's secretly planning to retire D:<)
  1090. [b]F-Tang Steve[/b]: The second thing is, giant armoured serpentids are getting very close to release now. I'm wondering when I will become a maintainer officially.
  1091. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: Realize F-Tang you're the first non-staff to staff to become maintainer since uhhh...years
  1092. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: And after the first contact basically
  1093. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: ~meeting info Get to Species Maintainers Application Process at some point
  1094. [b]F-Tang Steve[/b]: Wouldn't discussing my release shedule and whitelist plans in the subforum be good before I post them publicly so other maintainers can give feedback?
  1095. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: You should bring it up with spooky
  1096. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: If that's that though, <@263552026791641098>
  1097. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: <@66251438572961792> Mr. Loremin
  1098. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: So you know you were summoned by tog
  1099. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: 👍
  1100. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Is that it?
  1101. [b]Crushtoe[/b]: Did we finish a meeting in just over two hours for once?
  1102. [b]xales[/b]: We have one more thing I think
  1103. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: Yeah I pinged you
  1104. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: 😦
  1105. [b]xales[/b]: Which is sort of a <@210920426451369984> and <@264899825793761302> thing too, but I just want to say, once again, thanks everyone for the work you put in. Frankly, this stuff sucks sometimes, people can be rude and unappreciative, but through the hard work of everyone we've built up to where we are, and are continuing to improve things, and thanks for everything you put in. The people who appreciate it are often more silent, but the rude people tend to speak out the most. It's nice to call out the nice stuff too, and I want to make sure I do that.
  1106. [b]Botwinder Mk.II[/b]: <@210920426451369984> and <@264899825793761302> received a _thank you_ hamster!
  1107. [b]xales[/b]: Along with that:
  1108. [b]xales[/b]: If you guys ever have any ideas about how we can make doing these jobs easier or more interesting or anything of the sort, reach out to any of us.
  1109. [b]Daaneesh[/b]: <3
  1110. [b]xales[/b]: Is there anything anyone wants to bring up right now just about, like, making life easier, streamlining stuff, whatever; whether it's a process change, game feature, etc?
  1111. [b]mkalash[/b]: _coughs up a ticket_
  1112. [b]mkalash[/b]: jk we don't need to talk about it
  1113. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: I don't have anything so
  1114. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: If that's it, thankyou to everyone who attended the meeting, glad I finally got to host one.
  1115. [b]Daaneesh[/b]: g tresnj v
  1116. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: 😐
  1117. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: Anyways, meeting adjourned
  1118. [b]ThatOneGuy[/b]: ~meeting end
  1119. [b]Botwinder Mk.II[/b]: Your meeting __**Staff Meeting**__ ended, please wait a moment while I finish up the logs.
  1120. [b]Botwinder Mk.II[/b]: Done, here you go! =)
  1121. [b]Minutes[/b]: <http://botwinder.info/meetings/274952400358473728/Staff%20Meeting/meeting?date=2017-07-08_00>
RAW Paste Data
Ledger Nano X - The secure hardware wallet
We use cookies for various purposes including analytics. By continuing to use Pastebin, you agree to our use of cookies as described in the Cookies Policy. OK, I Understand
Top