Tides of War

I?ve been thinking (a dangerous thing for me to do) about the attention given on the UKAAC forums to a suggested sysop rotation. I think everyone, except its sponsor, agreed that it was a non starter for various good reasons. Everyone seemed, more or less, satisfied with the status quo, although there were a couple of murmurings about unfair treatment. Of course, human nature being what it is, there are always going to be instances of people thinking they were unfairly treated. Egos are involved on both sides, there are language misunderstandings and cultural differences even between those who appear to speak the same language. On the whole, however, most of us seem to be satisfied with the present bunch of neurotic megalomaniacs. Most of them, most of the time, seem to be able to put aside their personal feelings in the interests of fair play.

Having said what I did above, I wonder, however, if there is a more democratic means of appointing sysops. Let me hasten to say I am not suggesting an instant overthrow of the present regime. I am just thinking of new appointments and how they should be selected. If the process is seen to be transparent it might serve to satisfy those who think there is some kind of secret agenda on the part of the administration. Should it be entirely a decision of the present administration? Should it be a more democratic process? If the latter how should that democratic process work? Should squads put forward nominees on the basis of each squad being represented? Should all registered players have a say and the opportunity to vote for who they think is most suited?

I just thought, I might stick my neck out and offer it as an interesting topic for debate. It could be enlightening provided everyone expresses their opinion in a civil and courteous manner. I like to live dangerously, at least in the cyber world, so how about it?

PS This is not intended as an opportunity for TS_Hawk to submit his resume (with Tulla's endorsement attached)

There is already a way to elect new sysops (if needed). Letting each individual player vote, wont work, some dont play all the time and dont see how each potential candidate acts in game and on forums all the time, but all players should have a some kinda say about who is a Sysops. And having squads nominate wont work, cause if they are not selected that squad would take it as a personal rejection to that squad in general. Although I do have a idea for a possible selection board and/or mediators ( that would work along side present admins and sysops);

It would work similiar to how super delegates work in the USA, but we could call them AA delegates.

5-10 AA delegates would be selected based on experience/attitude/fairness/game involvement/etc.etc. Maybe each community could have 2-3 AA delegates.

They would then have a vote from a Non-admin/sysops position (kinda like a Union Rep.) on who would be a good candidate to be a Sysops, or maybe these AA delegates could be next in line for a new Sysops.

Seems like a good idea to me. Although the way I posted it may seem a bit confusing.

Also these AA delegates could also act as a mediator between players and Admins and Sysops

Note: These AA delagates would agree to act fair and just and see both sides of all stories and situations they are presented. And agree to be unbiased and not use personal feelings when representing a player.

Maybe we should start a thread solely for "applicants" to post thier names for the position.

This way Temper would have a visula of who wanted to be considered.

Tbar and I have already posted our desire of this position in another unrelated thread and Hawk has put his desire on the record on the UK site as well.

Why not have a place to see all the applicants who would like to be considered once the need for a US sysop arises again?

At least then no one canfeel that they where forgotten once another one is chosen.

Guest_my_Opinion,

Well posted and a foundation to think about,

Question is,

Who are you, it would be more appropriate to better talk with the real poster tag no matter who it might be, your post speaks for itself, it's just a respectfull thing to me.

Thank you guest. I think your idea is worth considering. It will be interesting to see what sort of general response it gets. By the way, what's with the name "guest" Did you choose to post under that name or is it a flaw in the system? I have noticed it happening to a couple of other people lately.

Fern, as always, is playing the pirate One thing you can be sure of...I won't be putting my name on that list. I can do without the aggravation and that's why I would hesitate to criticize anyone who does have the nerve to take the job on.

I can remember a long time ago I asked Mr. Temper about how one becomes a Sysop, because it seemed like they were hardly ever seen except on the weekends. He stated to me that all you need to do is to apply and if the Admins approve you you could find yourself with a new job. Being a newbie at the time and presently still flying like one, I knew that it would be a wasted effort because I had only been playing the game for a couple of months.

At the present, I think the present board of sysops are doing a pretty good job. Just because they aren't always flying with a Sysops tag doesn't mean they are not there. Now that I have been around for a while, I wouldn't mind throwing my name into the hat, but at the present I'm content with the sysops we now have.

JoKeR

You really don't want to be a sysop.

Being a sysop ruins the game for you.

Anyone who 'wants' to be a sysop, is the wrong kind of person to be one.

Steep....

I dont think you should "apply" to do it as that has been tried by DBE and look where that lead.

At the moment - im happy with the way its done (normally through cherry picking the most dedicated folk). But if the community and game becomes larger to the point that cherrypicking is not suitable, then some kind of basic requirements could be worked out like you must be in a squad (squad pilots are retained for longer than non squad pilots), have voluntarily offered time for AA doing other things etc.

At the moment, im happy with how it works because the community size is small enough to work that way. But if the size of the game grows we should likely review the current system in place for something better.

Btw, in terms of size i'd say wed need at least twice the regular player base we have now at least to reconsider how sysops are chosen.

Del

Bravo Del and Steep,

Even tho I don't know who most of the Sysops are, never cared to look or know, seemed that in our time zone there wern't enough Sysops at one time. Still might not be enough in our time Zone knowing AA is 24/7.

It's Temper's call, I believe, if the Sysops in this time zone are too few or over worked ect.

Good discussion for the future and the goals of AA.

Salute

My real tag name is not important for 2 reasons,

1: Its an opinion

2: Maybe its better AA had some opinions from an anonymous poster to avoid personal conflict with any idea or comment I may say that may prevent that idea from being pushed forward, but being an anonymous poster maybe an idea may be taken for whats its worth not for who made it.

I am not sure if the idea I posted is feasable or will even be considered for a possible addition to the present day AA scenerio. But I do believe it would make for a better way to handle issues and keep the Admins/Sysops and players from getting into forum debates that turn into arguements and make a mockery of the game and the community as a whole, and not to forget another 3rd party.

The idea is very simple and would make things easier for Admins and Sysops, you may also see it as middle management, (not to make it into a business thing) but keeping Admins and Sysops seperate from players in certain situations is better for both parties and eases the stress for Admins/Sysops and keeps the relationships between Admins/Sysops and players from getting out of control hence bad feelings wont be spawned and issues wont get blown out of proportion.

I know there are several players non-Sysops that would make for great AA delegates, some in squads and some not in squads.

The problem is getting the Admin/Sysops Board to evaluate the idea, there are many things and scenerios that they will need to discuss before even making it possible add said AA delegates.

Now understand that these AA delegates would NOT have any controls that the Admins/Sysops have EVER. They would deal with issues via PM/E-Mail/and TeamSpeak. I know some will say you have such AA delegates and they are called CO's but CO's can be biased and only hold decisions for there squad mates, and some CO's only fly on Sundays, so they are really not the answer here, although the very active CO's should still be respected in such a way.

Again, no need to know my real tag name, since this is an issue about the community as a whole, not a personal decision or personal idea, its an idea that would make for a better AA community. I have read alot of posts lately on here and the uk site, and I wont name names since names are irrelavant now, but some posts were good but wrong at the same time, and some posts were bad but right as the same time. There is no need to tear down what system is in place in AA, but maybe its time a new sector is added to keep things smooth and alittle less stressful for ALL parties.