Guest
home
beatmaps
rankings
community
store
help
forum
  1. Forums
  2. Other
  3. Off-Topic

This new Denzin system is worse

posted
Total Posts
40

This new Denzin system is worse

Agreed
14
82.35%
Disagree
3
17.65%
Total votes: 17
Manishh
2,093 posts
Joined October 2020
Topic Starter
Manishh
I am only counting Abraker post since I think its the official one, Also not reading more stuff since they are 100+post

abraker wrote:

NOTICE

As time marches on we find ourselves questioning what it means to become denizen. The OT Royal Society has first defined it in terms of activity. When that was then found insufficient by the OT!Government it was changed to time spent in this place. While this has worked for the previous generation, it has become increasingly apparent as of late the problems of justifying someone as denizen despite time spent here. This is why the OT!Governement has passed a vote: Denizen candidates chosen by the OT!Government shall now submit their own reasoning for why they should be considered for denizenship. Candidates shall be DM'd when they qualify, and only if approved, shall their denizenship be announced.
I still wonder if What 'Denzin' actually is clear.

Is this a job or what? Isnt Denzin is something you get as a reward for spending a big amount of time in OT! and not letting it die like other forums. Now it has definitely become a title to work for it. And I thought we were trying to prevent it to be like this.


oh hell na

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.
WTF is this now, The last two were already disaster now this one. At one point I can still say its not that bad but government deciding such a big thing is In my opinion not good. Probably should have a voting to all denzin rather then deciding by themselves.
Last edited by Manishh , edited 1 time in total.
WitherMite
1,604 posts
Joined August 2019
WitherMite

Manishh wrote:

I still wonder if What 'Denzin' actually is clear.
ghouly is doing surveys to answer this question

community/forums/topics/1689279?n=1
community/forums/topics/1689759?n=1
[ Sebastian ]
586 posts
Joined July 2021
[ Sebastian ]
They somehow made the system worse. And I already thought the previous system was flawed.
Farfocele
1,064 posts
Joined April 2020
Farfocele
holy hell, i hope being inactive doesn't result in denizenship revokal
[ Sebastian ]
586 posts
Joined July 2021
[ Sebastian ]

Farfocele wrote:

holy hell, i hope being inactive doesn't result in denizenship revokal
I'm expecting the worse considering it's abraker.
Kaaruumii
861 posts
Joined November 2021
Kaaruumii

Farfocele wrote:

holy hell, i hope being inactive doesn't result in denizenship revokal
if it did bye bye to 95% of denizens
Achromalia
364 posts
Joined November 2016
Achromalia
any critique i make here is inevitably subjective as hell, but many of the qualifications do seem... capable of hurting the subforum more than encourage any benefit of a distinctive denizen class. even with as minimally significant a benefit as recognition/distinction without any particularly political subforum power would still have this effect to some extent, so it's important that the qualifications and significance of that distinction are scaled responsibly and proportionately.

but i'm gathering the impression that it quickly became disproportionate, and the nature of OT had begun to centrally be anchored at the focal point of denizenship instead of our posts, even though post value happened to be an influential foundation of denizenship through the metric of perceived contribution...

it's some sort of irony, that one (" =.=)

- - -

Kaaruumii wrote:

Farfocele wrote:

holy hell, i hope being inactive doesn't result in denizenship revokal
if it did bye bye to 95% of denizens
well, with my own judgment of this, i find inactivity to be a strange and ineffective (with consideration for circumstance, there's often good reason for why someone might not be able to maintain an effort in OT, and that reasoning would need very minimal effort to qualify) metric of justification for revoked denizenship. if it functionally results in more of a "hall of fame" dynamic, there's little more antithetical to the recognition of contribution during denizenship qualifications than revoking that recognition because someone's no longer consistent in their activity despite still having made significant contributions, i'd imagine...
Last edited by Achromalia , edited 1 time in total.
ghoulybits
78 posts
Joined January 2017
ghoulybits
Just to clarify: There are no plans to revoke denizenship based on activity or even "bad posts". It is only reserved for situations of a nature such as this. As long as you don't actively post about you-know-what even when people tell you to stop repeatedly for over a year straight, you have absolutely nothing to worry about.
Achromalia
364 posts
Joined November 2016
Achromalia

ghoulybits wrote:

Just to clarify: There are no plans to revoke denizenship based on activity or even "bad posts". It is only reserved for situations of a nature such as this. As long as you don't actively post about you-know-what even when people tell you to stop repeatedly for over a year straight, you have absolutely nothing to worry about.
can easily concur with that reassurance at least. i don't think we're heading toward anything extreme in nature from this instance of revoking denizenship, although i'd also wonder if that's necessarily the opinion of the populace. maybe the opinion would still be close enough to interpret that way? that's to say, it's possible that some are focusing on critiquing specific issues while others hijack it into a scare, and enough of that might cause the distinction to blur. knowing that the possibility of it is there now would be something that could be taken and expanded into something that isn't there.

or i'm misreading the specifics of things, only just started reading through the events of OT today.
Last edited by Achromalia , edited 2 times in total.
Polyspora
473 posts
Joined September 2019
Polyspora

ghoulybits wrote:

Just to clarify: There are no plans to revoke denizenship based on activity or even "bad posts". It is only reserved for situations of a nature such as this. As long as you don't actively post about you-know-what even when people tell you to stop repeatedly for over a year straight, you have absolutely nothing to worry about.
for now? yes. but what will the future government interpret as a fitting situation to revoke denizenship? what if they start revoking from people they just dont like? is that type of thing you need to think about
Last edited by Polyspora , edited 1 time in total.
Achromalia
364 posts
Joined November 2016
Achromalia

Polyspora wrote:

ghoulybits wrote:

Just to clarify: There are no plans to revoke denizenship based on activity or even "bad posts". It is only reserved for situations of a nature such as this. As long as you don't actively post about you-know-what even when people tell you to stop repeatedly for over a year straight, you have absolutely nothing to worry about.
for now? yes. but what will the future government interpret as a fitting situation to revoke denizenship? what if they start revoking from people they just dont like? is that type of thing you need to think about
given the nature of the accessibility of OT or any other subforum right now, and the lack of any apparent introduction of blatant and disproportionate so-called censorship, it's hard to take that too seriously. that's not to say it isn't worth preventing a scenario where ot!government can exploit power extrajudicially.
Last edited by Achromalia , edited 2 times in total.
ghoulybits
78 posts
Joined January 2017
ghoulybits

Polyspora wrote:

ghoulybits wrote:

Just to clarify: There are no plans to revoke denizenship based on activity or even "bad posts". It is only reserved for situations of a nature such as this. As long as you don't actively post about you-know-what even when people tell you to stop repeatedly for over a year straight, you have absolutely nothing to worry about.
for now? yes. but what will the future government interpret as a fitting situation to revoke denizenship? what if they start revoking from people they just dont like? is that type of thing you need to think about
There is still plenty of time for checks and balances to be added to the system before a new government comes into power. I'd advise not doomposting yet.
[ Sebastian ]
586 posts
Joined July 2021
[ Sebastian ]
"Doomposting"
Achromalia
364 posts
Joined November 2016
Achromalia

[ Sebastian ] wrote:

"Doomposting"
?

Polyspora wrote:

[ Sebastian ] wrote:

"Doomposting"
???
Last edited by Achromalia , edited 2 times in total.
Polyspora
473 posts
Joined September 2019
Polyspora

[ Sebastian ] wrote:

"Doomposting"


ghoulybits wrote:

Polyspora wrote:

ghoulybits wrote:

Just to clarify: There are no plans to revoke denizenship based on activity or even "bad posts". It is only reserved for situations of a nature such as this. As long as you don't actively post about you-know-what even when people tell you to stop repeatedly for over a year straight, you have absolutely nothing to worry about.
for now? yes. but what will the future government interpret as a fitting situation to revoke denizenship? what if they start revoking from people they just dont like? is that type of thing you need to think about
There is still plenty of time for checks and balances to be added to the system before a new government comes into power. I'd advise not doomposting yet.
its a valid concern, I dont know what you mean by doomposting.
Last edited by Polyspora , edited 1 time in total.
[ Sebastian ]
586 posts
Joined July 2021
[ Sebastian ]
She's acting like we just want to be negative and gloomy. At least for me, I just don't want to lose OT.
Polyspora
473 posts
Joined September 2019
Polyspora

[ Sebastian ] wrote:

She's acting like we just want to be negative and gloomy. At least for me, I just don't want to lose OT.
Achromalia
364 posts
Joined November 2016
Achromalia
mmnh. i think... i understand? eh, no, i'm still not familiar enough with events and what these perspectives are here.

but i do wonder if that's a little uncharitable, i don't see there being a portrayal to the effect of any of you ever wanting to feel dismal (emphasis on want, rather than what i think is meant, which is "being") or wanting to be maliciously contrarian. though that may just be a result of my stance from experience in OT, since i've been around for a long while in OT and i'm pretty certain there isn't much precedent for OT being lost per se, nor any immediately obvious issues beyond what we already know regarding denizenship-- not to the extent that would merit this much alarm, at least.

again, that isn't to say there isn't reason to have this concern, but it would be preventative and measured rather than suggesting we've already fallen past remedy. or maybe i also misinterpreted that too;;
Last edited by Achromalia , edited 2 times in total.
Patatitta
1,297 posts
Joined February 2020
Patatitta
the revoking isn't necessarily bad, it's just made in the worst fucking time possible, at least wait a month until this settles down, we werent done disscusing the first thing and now we are thrown out another controversial change



Achromalia wrote:

any critique i [...] and the nature of OT had begun to centrally be anchored at the focal point of denizenship instead of our posts, even though post value happened to be an influential foundation of denizenship through the metric of perceived contribution...

it's some sort of irony, that one (" =.=)

honestly I feel ot has strafed further away from that recently, at least we aren't getting posts begging for denizen as much as earlier, still, I Think this is a necessary disscusion
Last edited by Patatitta , edited 1 time in total.
Polyspora
473 posts
Joined September 2019
Polyspora

Achromalia wrote:

mmnh. i think... i understand? eh, no, i'm still not familiar enough with events and what these perspectives are here.

but i do wonder if that's a little uncharitable, though it may just be a result of my stance. i've been around for a long while in OT and i'm pretty certain there isn't much precedent for OT being lost per se, nor any immediately obvious issues beyond what we already know regarding denizenship-- not to the extent that would merit this much alarm, at least.

again, that isn't to say there isn't reason to have this concern, but it would be preventative and measured rather than suggesting we've already fallen past remedy. or maybe i also misinterpreted that too;;
A concern is just a concern, she hissed at us with “doomposting” for nothing.
ghoulybits
78 posts
Joined January 2017
ghoulybits

Polyspora wrote:

[ Sebastian ] wrote:

She's acting like we just want to be negative and gloomy. At least for me, I just don't want to lose OT.
OT isn't lost, though. It's nowhere near being lost.

I call it doomposting because it was speculating about a future that hasn't come to pass yet and can still be entirely prevented. Could denizen removal be misused? Yes, but 1. It hasn't yet and 2. I am trying to prevent that. If we reach a day when denizen removal is misused then sure, OT is probably lost then. But that's not today, and that's not going to be the case for a while, if ever.

Hissed at us? Lmao. I see that all my words are being taken as uncharitably as usual.

Patatitta wrote:

the revoking isn't necessarily bad, it's just made in the worst fucking time possible, at least wait a month until this settles down, we werent done disscusing the first thing and now we are thrown out another controversial change
Here's the thing: this change has been in the works for a while now, and it's kinda sort of the type of change you can't put off. The timing wasn't great, but there isn't much we can do about it.
Last edited by ghoulybits , edited 2 times in total.
Patatitta
1,297 posts
Joined February 2020
Patatitta
please avoid getting into a civil war, problem is the system, I think we can all agree on that, and we should work on fixing that, let's not start calling names and saying weird stuff
Achromalia
364 posts
Joined November 2016
Achromalia

ghoulybits wrote:

Polyspora wrote:

[ Sebastian ] wrote:

She's acting like we just want to be negative and gloomy. At least for me, I just don't want to lose OT.
OT isn't lost, though. It's nowhere near being lost.

I call it doomposting because it was speculating about a future that hasn't come to pass yet and can still be entirely prevented. Could denizen removal be misused? Yes, but 1. It hasn't yet and 2. I am trying to prevent that. If we reach a day when denizen removal is misused then sure, OT is probably lost then. But that's not today, and that's not going to be the case for a while, if ever.

Hissed at us? Lmao. I see that all my words are being taken as uncharitably as usual.
this makes much more sense with the clarification given. i can't really disregard everything and everyone else, and will choose to remain skeptical of significant additions and changes to denizenship and government for the sake of security. that said, i think that was always the point anyways, and i really doubt you would disagree with that. scrutiny can be healthy, and as the president yourself, that's something you'd likely appreciate having for consideration.

- - -

i'd restate that we shouldn't be interpreting each other uncharitably. i guess that could come from not feeling quite satisfied with how concerns are addressed, or what the responses have been in OT discourse, though...

but right now, none of this is helpful. as much as i understand the intent, we're getting nowhere with that.
Last edited by Achromalia , edited 2 times in total.
igorsprite
623 posts
Joined September 2015
igorsprite

ghoulybits wrote:

Just to clarify: There are no plans to revoke denizenship based on activity or even "bad posts". It is only reserved for situations of a nature such as this. As long as you don't actively post about you-know-what even when people tell you to stop repeatedly for over a year straight, you have absolutely nothing to worry about.
you guys were planning to revoke the denizenship of people who are already banned.
ghoulybits
78 posts
Joined January 2017
ghoulybits

igorsprite wrote:

ghoulybits wrote:

Just to clarify: There are no plans to revoke denizenship based on activity or even "bad posts". It is only reserved for situations of a nature such as this. As long as you don't actively post about you-know-what even when people tell you to stop repeatedly for over a year straight, you have absolutely nothing to worry about.
you guys were planning to revoke the denizenship of people who are already banned.
Those cases also involve people who's contributions to OT are vastly outweighed by the negative effects of their actions.
Achromalia
364 posts
Joined November 2016
Achromalia

igorsprite wrote:

ghoulybits wrote:

Just to clarify: There are no plans to revoke denizenship based on activity or even "bad posts". It is only reserved for situations of a nature such as this. As long as you don't actively post about you-know-what even when people tell you to stop repeatedly for over a year straight, you have absolutely nothing to worry about.
you guys were planning to revoke the denizenship of people who are already banned.
can't verify anything about that myself, but i don't think this changes anything about what was already mentioned. i'd imagine this would be an amendment to that.
Corne2Plum3
Global Moderator
1,815 posts
Joined November 2019
Corne2Plum3
You guys are terrified of your denizenship since someone got it revoked. It's only the first time. I hope this will be exceptional and there are good reasons to justify it (inactivity is an invalid argument of course). Remember that when this person lost its denizen ship it was for his bad behiavior but mostly (if not only) because he got exposed for doing something really bad, that goes beyond OT or even osu!, something that concern him IRL. (I won't give more details about that).

I personally don't know if the revoke is a good thing or not, I'm neutral for this), but denizenship removal should be something VERY VERY rare, like at every occurence we remember it even years ago, and only if there are severe problems such as the (unique) example I explained above. Inactivity MUST NOT be a reason of denizenship removal, else we're going to lose some OT! history, and also leads OT to death.
igorsprite
623 posts
Joined September 2015
igorsprite

Corne2Plum3 wrote:

You guys are terrified of your denizenship since someone got it revoked. It's only the first time. I hope this will be exceptional and there are good reasons to justify it (inactivity is an invalid argument of course). Remember that when this person lost its denizen ship it was for his bad behiavior but mostly (if not only) because he got exposed for doing something really bad, that goes beyond OT or even osu!, something that concern him IRL. (I won't give more details about that).
Pls say what i did because i really don't know
- cirno -
584 posts
Joined December 2021
- cirno -
I dont even know how to get denizen anymore
[ Sebastian ]
586 posts
Joined July 2021
[ Sebastian ]

A_childIGuess wrote:

I dont even know how to get denizen anymore
Shinrun DMs you saying that you're qualified. And if not, you DM him contributions you made to OT. Contributions are so vague like, what does that even mean?
ShinRun
266 posts
Joined November 2020
ShinRun

[ Sebastian ] wrote:

A_childIGuess wrote:

I dont even know how to get denizen anymore
Shinrun DMs you saying that you're qualified. And if not, you DM him contributions you made to OT. Contributions are so vague like, what does that even mean?
Wait no this isn’t how it works, when you reach the 8 months of activity benchmark, I will dm you saying you may now submit your list of contributions to be reviewed by the parliament and possibly receive denizenship.

My apologies if my previous post was a misleading
[ Sebastian ]
586 posts
Joined July 2021
[ Sebastian ]

ShinRun wrote:

[ Sebastian ] wrote:

A_childIGuess wrote:

I dont even know how to get denizen anymore
Shinrun DMs you saying that you're qualified. And if not, you DM him contributions you made to OT. Contributions are so vague like, what does that even mean?
Wait no this isn’t how it works, when you reach the 8 months of activity benchmark, I will dm you saying you may now submit your list of contributions to be reviewed by the parliament and possibly receive denizenship.

My apologies if my previous post was a misleading
You never said anything about the 8 months thing still applying. I thought you DMed random dwellers you thought would make good denizens.
ghoulybits
78 posts
Joined January 2017
ghoulybits

[ Sebastian ] wrote:

ShinRun wrote:

[ Sebastian ] wrote:

A_childIGuess wrote:

I dont even know how to get denizen anymore
Shinrun DMs you saying that you're qualified. And if not, you DM him contributions you made to OT. Contributions are so vague like, what does that even mean?
Wait no this isn’t how it works, when you reach the 8 months of activity benchmark, I will dm you saying you may now submit your list of contributions to be reviewed by the parliament and possibly receive denizenship.

My apologies if my previous post was a misleading
You never said anything about the 8 months thing still applying. I thought you DMed random dwellers you thought would make good denizens.
The 8 months thing is a requirement for becoming denizen, so it's assumed that you have already reached that mark.
Polyspora
473 posts
Joined September 2019
Polyspora

ghoulybits wrote:

[ Sebastian ] wrote:

ShinRun wrote:

[ Sebastian ] wrote:

A_childIGuess wrote:

I dont even know how to get denizen anymore
Shinrun DMs you saying that you're qualified. And if not, you DM him contributions you made to OT. Contributions are so vague like, what does that even mean?
Wait no this isn’t how it works, when you reach the 8 months of activity benchmark, I will dm you saying you may now submit your list of contributions to be reviewed by the parliament and possibly receive denizenship.

My apologies if my previous post was a misleading
You never said anything about the 8 months thing still applying. I thought you DMed random dwellers you thought would make good denizens.
The 8 months thing is a requirement for becoming denizen, so it's assumed that you have already reached that mark.
so no one but patatitta I guess?
[ Sebastian ]
586 posts
Joined July 2021
[ Sebastian ]

ghoulybits wrote:

[ Sebastian ] wrote:

ShinRun wrote:

[ Sebastian ] wrote:

A_childIGuess wrote:

I dont even know how to get denizen anymore
Shinrun DMs you saying that you're qualified. And if not, you DM him contributions you made to OT. Contributions are so vague like, what does that even mean?
Wait no this isn’t how it works, when you reach the 8 months of activity benchmark, I will dm you saying you may now submit your list of contributions to be reviewed by the parliament and possibly receive denizenship.

My apologies if my previous post was a misleading
You never said anything about the 8 months thing still applying. I thought you DMed random dwellers you thought would make good denizens.
The 8 months thing is a requirement for becoming denizen, so it's assumed that you have already reached that mark.
I know it's a lost cause to ask this but: Will you not allow people to be denizens if they don't like the new denizenship system?
Duck o-o
1,394 posts
Joined November 2021
Duck o-o
i have braindamage spawned idea

cant u just have tiers of denizen based on contributions and time

like if someone is just active for 8 months they get the lowest tier but if they are active and have contributed good threads they get a higher tier

cant really be bothered using more brain power on a problem i dont have so im sorry if this is a bad idea or if its already been considered
Achromalia
364 posts
Joined November 2016
Achromalia
doubtful of the notion of barring denizenship from those who dislike the system for it. of course, it's still fair to have reassurance, though.

if a user wants to be a denizen and is eligible, it seems like it'll be pretty simple. if they don't like the system of denizenship, then they can probably opt out themselves, right? i don't think that'll necessarily disqualify them as there isn't any requisite for what they should believe, only how a denizen might ideally be recognized, and little more than that :O
Last edited by Achromalia , edited 1 time in total.
ShinRun
266 posts
Joined November 2020
ShinRun
Potato isn’t the only one eligible for denizenship right now, there are also 2 or 3 others.

Also we will not be restricting anyone from receiving denizenship just because they show dislike for the current system. I can guarantee this.
[ Sebastian ]
586 posts
Joined July 2021
[ Sebastian ]
I only have less then 6 months left.
Manishh
2,093 posts
Joined October 2020
Topic Starter
Manishh
I still think interview is a fucked up thing, still should be old way of Announcing it in the thread
Please sign in to reply.

New reply

0
1 / 40
/