eblf2013 wrote:

ShinRun wrote:

Seems like the new amendment is receiving massive backlash so I have a different proposal.

Instead of making denizenship harder to require, parliament change the only requirement needed to obtain denizenship to be active for 8 months. This might seem similar to the old one we had but the difference is you literally need to make 0 contribution to be included. Denizen becomes a symbol of "hey I was here for 8+ months" and this would also increase the amount of people in a generation.

On the other hand, I can create a different entity similar to the hall of fame which is only dedicated to denizen who actually contributed massive deeds to OT. If someone wish to be inducted into the hall of fame, they must submit a list of achievement they contributed to the community. The requirement will naturally be much harsher, and instead of having only parliament decide, it will be left to a poll where any denizen can vote. Also, unlike most hall of fame, you don't need to be inactive to get inducted into it but you must be active for a much longer period of time compared to denizenship.

Changes will still be made to this but if this is much more preferred, I'll talk to parliament and the president about it.

I think that going back to the certain number of posts whithin a certain amount of time, but instead to a fixed number, there must be like an average of how much a person has posted in that time and thus has been known by the community. As for the current requirements, I think it's now absurdly difficult and if I entered OT at this time I wouldn't have even been bothered being active.

ShinRun wrote:

Shortening the wait time to become denizen is not a smart idea

ShinRun wrote:

Shortening the wait time to become denizen is not a smart idea

igorsprite wrote:

patatitta will lead the resistance and create a new society called "outsiders" to compete with the denizens, and all this discussion will start the great OT war o:

abraker wrote:

NOTICE

For the first time in OT history the OT! Parliament has passed a vote to revoke denizenship. It is well deserved and serves as a warning against behavior many find inappropriate for this subforum and its health. I am not going to announce who it is since they deserve no spotlight, but I'm sure most of you can figure it out.

abraker wrote:

NOTICE

For the first time in OT history the OT! Parliament has passed a vote to revoke denizenship. It is well deserved and serves as a warning against behavior many find inappropriate for this subforum and its health. I am not going to announce who it is since they deserve no spotlight, but I'm sure most of you can figure it out.

Zelzatter Zero wrote:

to think the only notable active 7th gen denizen is Corne, Cleveland and Wither.

time flies.

Zelzatter Zero wrote:

to think the only notable active 7th gen denizen is Corne, Cleveland and Wither.

time flies.

Zelzatter Zero wrote:

to think the only notable active 7th gen denizen is Corne, Cleveland and Wither.

time flies.

Patatitta wrote:

I dont like this direction



/out

Rigbyuis wrote:

Patatitta wrote:

I dont like this direction



/out

out of what?

abraker wrote:

NOTICE

For the first time in OT history the OT! Parliament has passed a vote to revoke denizenship. It is well deserved and serves as a warning against behavior many find inappropriate for this subforum and its health. I am not going to announce who it is since they deserve no spotlight, but I'm sure most of you can figure it out.

ShinRun wrote:

I believe that being active on OT for 8 months is already enough of a contribution and denizen should and not based off total contribution.
Like what Pataitta said, we really gotta ask what being a denizen mean.

I think a denizen should be more of a badge of dedication for people that have stayed on the forum for a certain period of time like 8 months but also while being semi active. This is the least bias way to give denizenship out to people.

eblf2013 wrote:

abraker wrote:

NOTICE

For the first time in OT history the OT! Parliament has passed a vote to revoke denizenship. It is well deserved and serves as a warning against behavior many find inappropriate for this subforum and its health. I am not going to announce who it is since they deserve no spotlight, but I'm sure most of you can figure it out.

At least three should be quitted.

abraker wrote:

NOTICE

For the first time in OT history the OT! Parliament has passed a vote to revoke denizenship. It is well deserved and serves as a warning against behavior many find inappropriate for this subforum and its health. I am not going to announce who it is since they deserve no spotlight, but I'm sure most of you can figure it out.

ShinRun wrote:

I believe that being active on OT for 8 months is already enough of a contribution and denizen should and not based off total contribution.
Like what Pataitta said, we really gotta ask what being a denizen mean.

I think a denizen should be more of a badge of dedication for people that have stayed on the forum for a certain period of time like 8 months but also while being semi active. This is the least bias way to give denizenship out to people.

Corne2Plum3 wrote:

eblf2013 wrote:

abraker wrote:

NOTICE

For the first time in OT history the OT! Parliament has passed a vote to revoke denizenship. It is well deserved and serves as a warning against behavior many find inappropriate for this subforum and its health. I am not going to announce who it is since they deserve no spotlight, but I'm sure most of you can figure it out.

At least three should be quitted.

who?

eblf2013 wrote:

Corne2Plum3 wrote:

eblf2013 wrote:

abraker wrote:

NOTICE

For the first time in OT history the OT! Parliament has passed a vote to revoke denizenship. It is well deserved and serves as a warning against behavior many find inappropriate for this subforum and its health. I am not going to announce who it is since they deserve no spotlight, but I'm sure most of you can figure it out.

At least three should be quitted.

who?

Flanster, Ashton and most likely ppl that earned denizenship then went poof.

Polyspora wrote:

thats not cool, whatever.

I know Igor is not the best human being in the world and abraker is done with his shit, but I still think a restriction is more reasonable than taking away things he contributed to this community and his history here.

why cant he have the same fate as IppE?

1. Some mildly hee-hee-inducing necros from a couple years ago
2. Countless posts where he admits to being a (post immediately gets nuked, but both you and I know what word that goes here)

ghoulybits wrote:

Polyspora wrote:

thats not cool, whatever.

I know Igor is not the best human being in the world and abraker is done with his shit, but I still think a restriction is more reasonable than taking away things he contributed to this community and his history here.

why cant he have the same fate as IppE?

I would personally love for igorsprite's account to be restricted, but that is not something in my power.

Quite frankly, igorsprite's contributions to OT are as follows

1. Some mildly hee-hee-inducing necros from a couple years ago
2. Countless posts where he admits to being a (post immediately gets nuked, but both you and I know what word that goes here)

Denizenship has to do with contributions, yes, but more specifically positive contributions. Do we want to celebrate someone who physically can't stop posting about (sentence redacted but you also get the picture)? It is of my opinion, and the opinion of the vast majority of the OT!Government that any positive contributions that igorsprite has made on this subforum have been heavily outweighed by the sheer amount of times he has been given (quite frankly, undeserved) second chances and immediately disregarded them. He has been given numerous opportunities, and he has chosen every single time to not take them.

ShinRun wrote:

Ashton should also be removed

WitherMite wrote:

ShinRun wrote:

Ashton should also be removed

idk, ashton wasnt nearly as bad as igorsprite (just annoying vs being open about that), and from what I remember did have some actual good contributions.

ShinRun wrote:

WitherMite wrote:

ShinRun wrote:

Ashton should also be removed

idk, ashton wasnt nearly as bad as igorsprite (just annoying vs being open about that), and from what I remember did have some actual good contributions.

Well he opening doxxed ColdTooth tho

ShinRun wrote:

WitherMite wrote:

ShinRun wrote:

Ashton should also be removed

idk, ashton wasnt nearly as bad as igorsprite (just annoying vs being open about that), and from what I remember did have some actual good contributions.

Well he opening doxxed ColdTooth tho

ShinRun wrote:

WitherMite wrote:

ShinRun wrote:

Ashton should also be removed

idk, ashton wasnt nearly as bad as igorsprite (just annoying vs being open about that), and from what I remember did have some actual good contributions.

Well he opening doxxed ColdTooth tho

[ Sebastian ] wrote:

Wait, so is igor a Cosmodore?

Scyla wrote:

Good or bad, I don't really like removing pieces of history. OT about to become North Korea

JustABeginner wrote:

Yikes.

Anyways, I don't get obsessed with being denizen as much as I used to last time. But losing a title because of a serious bad behaviour is considered to be a wake up call to help improvise yourself.

idk

---

I miss my 7th Gen friends.

z0z wrote:

JustABeginner wrote:

Yikes.

Anyways, I don't get obsessed with being denizen as much as I used to last time. But losing a title because of a serious bad behaviour is considered to be a wake up call to help improvise yourself.

idk

---

I miss my 7th Gen friends.

not many of us are here but we're here

Patatitta wrote:

...problems start to surge if other people start revoking or get revoked due to not meeting the current criteria or being unhappy with the system, and we're basically 1 step away from that scenario

WitherMite wrote:

going from revoking denizen from someone openly being into illegal shit, bringing that into their threads/posts and making it their identity, even after being exiled to retroactively revoking denizenship or kicking out people who speak out is quite a bit more than "one step away"

Its not our fault osu doesnt see what igor's been doing as a bannable offense.

[ Sebastian ] wrote:

Can someone please tell me what Igor did. I am so lost.

Polyspora wrote:

[ Sebastian ] wrote:

Can someone please tell me what Igor did. I am so lost.

he like kids

Polyspora wrote:

[ Sebastian ] wrote:

Can someone please tell me what Igor did. I am so lost.

he like kids

igorsprite wrote:

Polyspora wrote:

[ Sebastian ] wrote:

Can someone please tell me what Igor did. I am so lost.

he like kids

yes, but it's unfair to associate me with illegal things

Manishh wrote:

igorsprite wrote:

Polyspora wrote:

[ Sebastian ] wrote:

Can someone please tell me what Igor did. I am so lost.

he like kids

yes, but it's unfair to associate me with illegal things

Liking kids isn't a wrong thing(it is)

But the way you represent it and the past....

ghoulybits wrote:

I feel like there's been some type of mass hysteria regarding denizenship. To me at least, it feels like people are feeding off of other people's negative feelings rather than looking at things objectively. Quite frankly, though, I'm not sure how to solve it. Anything I say will probably fall upon deaf ears.

[ Sebastian ] wrote:

Answer me this: What counts as a contribution? There's been a lack of explanation at that end.

ghoulybits wrote:

[ Sebastian ] wrote:

Answer me this: What counts as a contribution? There's been a lack of explanation at that end.

Here's the thing that makes this incredibly tricky: there sort of isn't a way to define that. Not for a lack of trying, but if a specific list of things you can do was created, 1. It'd probably be used as a template for others to mindlessly copy and 2. It'd probably be missing a whole hell of a lot of things that could also satisfactorily be considered a contribution. However, what I can do is tell you is the general guidelines I use to determine the scope of someone's contribution to OT.

Did this person put effort into their posts?
Did their posts involve the community in a fun way?
Did their posts further the lore of OT?
Are their posts memorable or distinct?

Please note that not all of these conditions have to be filled.

I can't speak for how other members of the OT!Gov do their business, but literally all I look for is just... some indication of effort that a person cares about OT and the people within it. It isn't an especially high bar, and there's lots of room to do things there.

Patatitta wrote:

ghoulybits wrote:

[ Sebastian ] wrote:

Answer me this: What counts as a contribution? There's been a lack of explanation at that end.

Here's the thing that makes this incredibly tricky: there sort of isn't a way to define that. Not for a lack of trying, but if a specific list of things you can do was created, 1. It'd probably be used as a template for others to mindlessly copy and 2. It'd probably be missing a whole hell of a lot of things that could also satisfactorily be considered a contribution. However, what I can do is tell you is the general guidelines I use to determine the scope of someone's contribution to OT.

Did this person put effort into their posts?
Did their posts involve the community in a fun way?
Did their posts further the lore of OT?
Are their posts memorable or distinct?

Please note that not all of these conditions have to be filled.

I can't speak for how other members of the OT!Gov do their business, but literally all I look for is just... some indication of effort that a person cares about OT and the people within it. It isn't an especially high bar, and there's lots of room to do things there.

I think this shows the problem with the current system, nothing is specific, is way more abusable than the previous one, it feels less transparent, this is just going to lead to more drama, I just prefer having the "oh x person does not deserve denizen" from time to time than for whatever will come with this

ghoulybits wrote:

Patatitta wrote:

quote="ghoulybits"]

Patatitta wrote:

ghoulybits wrote:

[ Sebastian ] wrote:

Answer me this: What counts as a contribution? There's been a lack of explanation at that end.

Here's the thing that makes this incredibly tricky: there sort of isn't a way to define that. Not for a lack of trying, but if a specific list of things you can do was created, 1. It'd probably be used as a template for others to mindlessly copy and 2. It'd probably be missing a whole hell of a lot of things that could also satisfactorily be considered a contribution. However, what I can do is tell you is the general guidelines I use to determine the scope of someone's contribution to OT.

Did this person put effort into their posts?
Did their posts involve the community in a fun way?
Did their posts further the lore of OT?
Are their posts memorable or distinct?

Please note that not all of these conditions have to be filled.

I can't speak for how other members of the OT!Gov do their business, but literally all I look for is just... some indication of effort that a person cares about OT and the people within it. It isn't an especially high bar, and there's lots of room to do things there.

I think this shows the problem with the current system, nothing is specific, is way more abusable than the previous one, it feels less transparent, this is just going to lead to more drama, I just prefer having the "oh x person does not deserve denizen" from time to time than for whatever will come with this

This is how I've personally found that denizenship should be granted since before I held a role in the government, back when Penguin implemented his policies. Trust me, the "x person does not deserve denizen" conversation happens so fucking often behind the scenes that it's kind of ridiculous.

Why are people acting like this is some sort of new change? Things have been like this for close to two years now. Nothing has changed in that regard.

problem is that this is only more fuel to the fire, it really wont fix much, there still will be drama, but now you've got people to blame for accepting x person or not, you can critize that persons contribution list if you have access to it, people will exploit the sytem further trying to copy each others contribution, it's just not a solution to anything

With all due respect, everything you're saying either will always be an issue regardless of the system of denizenship you use, or is specifically an issue we try to keep away.

ghoulybits wrote:

We're aware that people might exploit the system by copying others, that's why we don't share explicit lists of what things we consider to be significant contributions to OT. People will always blame someone if they don't get a role they want. Drama will happen regardless.

Back when the only criteria was time and post count, there'd be drama over people immediately leaving after getting denizenship. Arguments are only inevitable, because we are all human.

Polyspora wrote:

thats a confusing quote wtf is happening

ghoulybits wrote:

The quotes seem to be fucking broken lmao no amount of editing is saving my soul

ghoulybits wrote:

Denizenship is a mark of some sort of significant contribution to OT...

Patatitta wrote:

if the main difference is people copying threads vs people doing low effort posts, I think copying is worse, and even if you think you dont, is it really worth it to go through all this extra work and risk just to change one for the other?

ghoulybits wrote:

Patatitta wrote:

if the main difference is people copying threads vs people doing low effort posts, I think copying is worse, and even if you think you dont, is it really worth it to go through all this extra work and risk just to change one for the other?

So far, we haven't encountered anyone who has gotten to the qualification stage who has blatantly copied what another person has done in order to become denizen.

Also, I'm going to remind you again that this has been the system for nearly two years now. Any changes have already occurred long ago.

Polyspora wrote:

ghoulybits wrote:

Patatitta wrote:

if the main difference is people copying threads vs people doing low effort posts, I think copying is worse, and even if you think you dont, is it really worth it to go through all this extra work and risk just to change one for the other?

So far, we haven't encountered anyone who has gotten to the qualification stage who has blatantly copied what another person has done in order to become denizen.

Also, I'm going to remind you again that this has been the system for nearly two years now. Any changes have already occurred long ago.

2 years is not much, considering OT lifetime.

Polyspora wrote:

ghoulybits wrote:

Patatitta wrote:

if the main difference is people copying threads vs people doing low effort posts, I think copying is worse, and even if you think you dont, is it really worth it to go through all this extra work and risk just to change one for the other?

So far, we haven't encountered anyone who has gotten to the qualification stage who has blatantly copied what another person has done in order to become denizen.

Also, I'm going to remind you again that this has been the system for nearly two years now. Any changes have already occurred long ago.

2 years is not much, considering OT lifetime.

ghoulybits wrote:

Polyspora wrote:

ghoulybits wrote:

Patatitta wrote:

if the main difference is people copying threads vs people doing low effort posts, I think copying is worse, and even if you think you dont, is it really worth it to go through all this extra work and risk just to change one for the other?

So far, we haven't encountered anyone who has gotten to the qualification stage who has blatantly copied what another person has done in order to become denizen.

Also, I'm going to remind you again that this has been the system for nearly two years now. Any changes have already occurred long ago.

2 years is not much, considering OT lifetime.

While that is correct, my point still stands that any adjustments that the government should have made have already been made, and by now there isn't a single person who isn't a denizen who has ever known another system besides Penguin's.

ghoulybits wrote:

Patatitta wrote:

if the main difference is people copying threads vs people doing low effort posts, I think copying is worse, and even if you think you dont, is it really worth it to go through all this extra work and risk just to change one for the other?

So far, we haven't encountered anyone who has gotten to the qualification stage who has blatantly copied what another person has done in order to become denizen.

Also, I'm going to remind you again that this has been the system for nearly two years now. Any changes have already occurred long ago.

Patatitta wrote:

ghoulybits wrote:

Patatitta wrote:

if the main difference is people copying threads vs people doing low effort posts, I think copying is worse, and even if you think you dont, is it really worth it to go through all this extra work and risk just to change one for the other?

So far, we haven't encountered anyone who has gotten to the qualification stage who has blatantly copied what another person has done in order to become denizen.

Also, I'm going to remind you again that this has been the system for nearly two years now. Any changes have already occurred long ago.

hasn't really changed because this system was not implemented yet, different systems has different weaknesses

if this has been the system, or close to for the last 2 years, and this change just only adds a human verification in the way, why do you actually think this system is going to work better?

people have been critizing the previous system too, this really just doesn't improve much at all

i dont think people are going to stop trying to just flood to get denizen either, most people who beg arent ellegible in the first place, people are also going to keep quitting after obtaining denizen, burnout is still a thing

ghoulybits wrote:

Patatitta wrote:

ghoulybits wrote:

Patatitta wrote:

if the main difference is people copying threads vs people doing low effort posts, I think copying is worse, and even if you think you dont, is it really worth it to go through all this extra work and risk just to change one for the other?

So far, we haven't encountered anyone who has gotten to the qualification stage who has blatantly copied what another person has done in order to become denizen.

Also, I'm going to remind you again that this has been the system for nearly two years now. Any changes have already occurred long ago.

hasn't really changed because this system was not implemented yet, different systems has different weaknesses

if this has been the system, or close to for the last 2 years, and this change just only adds a human verification in the way, why do you actually think this system is going to work better?

people have been critizing the previous system too, this really just doesn't improve much at all

i dont think people are going to stop trying to just flood to get denizen either, most people who beg arent ellegible in the first place, people are also going to keep quitting after obtaining denizen, burnout is still a thing

?? I'm... Not really sure what you're talking about here.

The current system of deciding denizenship has not changed since Penguin. While things have been added upon it, like denizens submitting their own contributions and denizenship being able to be removed, how we decide denizenship hasn't changed. No system that will change how denizenship is fundamentally decided has been implemented.

Are we having two different conversations here? I'm starting to think we are.

Patatitta wrote:

ghoulybits wrote:

Patatitta wrote:

ghoulybits wrote:

Patatitta wrote:

if the main difference is people copying threads vs people doing low effort posts, I think copying is worse, and even if you think you dont, is it really worth it to go through all this extra work and risk just to change one for the other?

So far, we haven't encountered anyone who has gotten to the qualification stage who has blatantly copied what another person has done in order to become denizen.

Also, I'm going to remind you again that this has been the system for nearly two years now. Any changes have already occurred long ago.

hasn't really changed because this system was not implemented yet, different systems has different weaknesses

if this has been the system, or close to for the last 2 years, and this change just only adds a human verification in the way, why do you actually think this system is going to work better?

people have been critizing the previous system too, this really just doesn't improve much at all

i dont think people are going to stop trying to just flood to get denizen either, most people who beg arent ellegible in the first place, people are also going to keep quitting after obtaining denizen, burnout is still a thing

?? I'm... Not really sure what you're talking about here.

The current system of deciding denizenship has not changed since Penguin. While things have been added upon it, like denizens submitting their own contributions and denizenship being able to be removed, how we decide denizenship hasn't changed. No system that will change how denizenship is fundamentally decided has been implemented.

Are we having two different conversations here? I'm starting to think we are.

"Also, I'm going to remind you again that this has been the system for nearly two years now. Any changes have already occurred long ago."

I was working off this line, did I missunderstand it?, from what I understood you said that contribution was already a factor since 2 years ago

Patatitta wrote:

by human verification I meant the adding the asking in dm for a list of contributions

what I understood from your posts is that contribution was already taken as a factor, and that this change only adds the requirement for that list

ghoulybits wrote:

Patatitta wrote:

by human verification I meant the adding the asking in dm for a list of contributions

what I understood from your posts is that contribution was already taken as a factor, and that this change only adds the requirement for that list

It's less of a requirement and more of a convenience for the OT!Government in cases where it was hard to find contributions made by various denizens.

[ Sebastian ] wrote:

Welp, looks like we'll have to deal with this new denizenship system.