To me it's pretty vague, im guessing a big time requirement and "contributions" which I really don't understand what that exactly means and feeling like I can be rejected because I posted something that was "insufficient" it overall makes me confused and not want to try at all, maybe I'm thinking too deep about it lmaoClevelandsMyBro wrote:
the current rules says otherwiseKaaruumii wrote:
starting to feel like the first one nowClevelandsMyBro wrote:
the latter[ Sebastian ] wrote:
I don't know if denizenship is either for big contributors to OT, or just a marker to show that you've been in OT for a while.
show more
Say denizenship requires actually doing something that will get you recognized and appreciated by denizens, and let people apply with a list of what they consider good contributions they made. Denizens would then vote whether they think these contributions are actually good or not.
That would let us see what everyone considers a good contribution and weed out those who apply without doing anything. People who don't want to be denizen would simply not apply.
It would help keep denizens more or less coherent in what they think OT should be like and avoid big conflicts and disagreements like we have here.
Meta would still shift with time thanks to old denizens leaving and new ones always being at least slightly different from their elders.
look at the main page, there's always the ot coalition, ot government announcement, random new faction and my statement about x and y on top 10
i know it's rp, but all those threads have non rp parts on them that relate to the denizen problem or new features to OT
im totally agree (in fact, i could realistically say that you readed my mind because i have the exact same thoughts on the problem), the "badge thing" is something i have thought about before but didnt know how to put it in words. hope this criteria and meaning for the denizen concept gets to be final result of these discussions
Quite frankly, igorsprite's contributions to OT are as follows
and if you guys are going to revoke denizens at least say who, why and when. we're not living in the soviet union, people shouldnt dissapear and no one would notice.
I'm printing all generations now fuck it I'm getting paranoid
But the way you represent it and the past....
btw i don't think we should discuss it here.
honestly, i'd probably prefer to hear your thoughts out on that one. shouldn't have to solve it alone, and i think some here may be more willing to consider this than impressions may have seemed.
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.
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.
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.
this system doesn't really help with people leaving after denizen tho, adding extra steps to the process can not aliviate someone being burned out of OT and using the fact they got denizen as an excuse to leave
is there anything this system actually fixes?
There isn't really a way to keep people from leaving, especially due to burnout, and it's not like I think people should stay here forever. However, if someone stays here longer and is incentivized to make more meaningful, high-quality posts that are able to be enjoyed by OT at large, they will make OT a better place to be.
What this system does fix is the high amounts of people (particularly from gen 7) who would post solely to get denizen and nothing else.
Denizenship is a mark of some sort of significant contribution to OT, and what better way to measure that than to have contribution as a requirement?
Also, I suggest you reply to this in a fresh post without quoting it because there's just. Something wrong here. Lord knows what happened with the bbcode
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.
show more
gen 9 is basically padoru war at this point xP
Not really
IMO the problem is that this new change fixes literally nothing, it's just obscuring the process that goes into becoming denizen instead of actually taking and solving the problem from the root of it, meaning, actually give a proper definition to what denizen really means, currently contribution is just a buzz word, since no one really knows what classifies as one,
is making a low effort post enough? no?, is high effort enough? what is even high effort? does it need to contribute to the lore? the thread must be active?, is time still a factor? none of this questions have really been answered
is making a low effort post enough? no?, is high effort enough? what is even high effort? does it need to contribute to the lore? the thread must be active?, is time still a factor? none of this questions have really been answered
Yeah. There needs to be a clear definition of what counts as a contribution.Patatitta wrote:
IMO the problem is that this new change fixes literally nothing, it's just obscuring the process that goes into becoming denizen instead of actually taking and solving the problem from the root of it, meaning, actually give a proper definition to what denizen really means, currently contribution is just a buzz word, since no one really knows what classifies as one,
is making a low effort post enough? no?, is high effort enough? what is even high effort? does it need to contribute to the lore? the thread must be active?, is time still a factor? none of this questions have really been answered
2k post woooooo
you guys should reduce the requirement to 2 months again
I think that's too little, and this is coming from someone who's been active for 2 months.igorsprite wrote:
you guys should reduce the requirement to 2 months again
Why not make the second part what's required for denizenship (without making it too hard) instead of just giving denizenship to basically everyone?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.
Say denizenship requires actually doing something that will get you recognized and appreciated by denizens, and let people apply with a list of what they consider good contributions they made. Denizens would then vote whether they think these contributions are actually good or not.
That would let us see what everyone considers a good contribution and weed out those who apply without doing anything. People who don't want to be denizen would simply not apply.
It would help keep denizens more or less coherent in what they think OT should be like and avoid big conflicts and disagreements like we have here.
Meta would still shift with time thanks to old denizens leaving and new ones always being at least slightly different from their elders.
This is by far the best solution I heard. I know that you plan on not having people wait 8 months to apply, but will there be a shorter wait time like 2 months?Karmine wrote:
Why not make the second part what's required for denizenship (without making it too hard) instead of just giving denizenship to basically everyone?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.
Say denizenship requires actually doing something that will get you recognized and appreciated by denizens, and let people apply with a list of what they consider good contributions they made. Denizens would then vote whether they think these contributions are actually good or not.
That would let us see what everyone considers a good contribution and weed out those who apply without doing anything. People who don't want to be denizen would simply not apply.
It would help keep denizens more or less coherent in what they think OT should be like and avoid big conflicts and disagreements like we have here.
Meta would still shift with time thanks to old denizens leaving and new ones always being at least slightly different from their elders.
No need for time I guess, since people could apply anyone who hasn't been long will hardly have any meaningful contribution to show.[ Sebastian ] wrote:
This is by far the best solution I heard. I know that you plan on not having people wait 8 months to apply, but will there be a shorter wait time like 2 months?Karmine wrote:
Why not make the second part what's required for denizenship (without making it too hard) instead of just giving denizenship to basically everyone?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.
Say denizenship requires actually doing something that will get you recognized and appreciated by denizens, and let people apply with a list of what they consider good contributions they made. Denizens would then vote whether they think these contributions are actually good or not.
That would let us see what everyone considers a good contribution and weed out those who apply without doing anything. People who don't want to be denizen would simply not apply.
It would help keep denizens more or less coherent in what they think OT should be like and avoid big conflicts and disagreements like we have here.
Meta would still shift with time thanks to old denizens leaving and new ones always being at least slightly different from their elders.
Either 8 months or longer is my opinion, gamers.
Anything else is fine as long as that's there.
Anything else is fine as long as that's there.
Shortening the wait time to become denizen is not a smart idea
i think that a denizen should be someone that posts currently and, as the word says, he dwells in the ot circle, so no need of big contribution, only of activity in a period of time, which is why i think that 8 monts of activity is alright without the "contribution" part
Constant activity is very important so maybe like at least 20 post a month or soeblf2013 wrote:
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:
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.
6 months is a good amount of time to see if someone is active on OT.
still a non-solution, you're just hoping that after a while there will be a concesus between the denizens to know what is vote-worthy, the moment more denizens join with different ideas then we would be back to square one, that's just a patch to try to make the system less likely to fall appart, but there still wont be a strong concesus on what really counts as a good enough contribution
ShinRun wrote:
Shortening the wait time to become denizen is not a smart idea
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:
ShinRun wrote:
Shortening the wait time to become denizen is not a smart idea
It's not going to be a war, it's going to be something like "The ot social question"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:
look at the main page, there's always the ot coalition, ot government announcement, random new faction and my statement about x and y on top 10
i know it's rp, but all those threads have non rp parts on them that relate to the denizen problem or new features to OT
Topic Starter
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.
it's me 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.
Oh god
LMAOOOO BEST DECISION EVER
Oof.
Maybe scratching the names from the images or an X over them would be cool.
Maybe scratching the names from the images or an X over them would be cool.
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.
Nice 👍
On denizenship, I agree with Karmine that time requirements should be removed, and only contributions matter. Or it could be multiple different sets of requirements to satisfy everyone’s style.
to think the only notable active 7th gen denizen is Corne, Cleveland and Wither.
time flies.
time flies.
They can revoke denizenship now?
Nooooo you forgot me!Zelzatter Zero wrote:
to think the only notable active 7th gen denizen is Corne, Cleveland and Wither.
time flies.
Zel.... I've literally been posting every day.Zelzatter Zero wrote:
to think the only notable active 7th gen denizen is Corne, Cleveland and Wither.
time flies.
There are othersZelzatter Zero wrote:
to think the only notable active 7th gen denizen is Corne, Cleveland and Wither.
time flies.
I dont like this direction
/out
/out
out of what?Patatitta wrote:
I dont like this direction
/out
I'm not going to try becoming denizen in this current systemRigbyuis wrote:
out of what?Patatitta wrote:
I dont like this direction
/out
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.
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.
Based afabraker 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.
im totally agree (in fact, i could realistically say that you readed my mind because i have the exact same thoughts on the problem), the "badge thing" is something i have thought about before but didnt know how to put it in words. hope this criteria and meaning for the denizen concept gets to be final result of these discussions
who?eblf2013 wrote:
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.
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 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?
Wabraker 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.
Is it retroactive? Asking for a forum friendShinRun 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.
Flanster, Ashton and most likely ppl that earned denizenship then went poof.Corne2Plum3 wrote:
who?eblf2013 wrote:
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.
Flanster :skull:eblf2013 wrote:
Flanster, Ashton and most likely ppl that earned denizenship then went poof.Corne2Plum3 wrote:
who?eblf2013 wrote:
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.
I would personally love for igorsprite's account to be restricted, but that is not something in my power.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?
Quite frankly, igorsprite's contributions to OT are as follows
- Some mildly hee-hee-inducing necros from a couple years ago
- Countless posts where he admits to being a (post immediately gets nuked, but both you and I know what word that goes here)
fairghoulybits wrote:
I would personally love for igorsprite's account to be restricted, but that is not something in my power.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?
Quite frankly, igorsprite's contributions to OT are as followsDenizenship 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.
- Some mildly hee-hee-inducing necros from a couple years ago
- Countless posts where he admits to being a (post immediately gets nuked, but both you and I know what word that goes here)
Wait, so is igor a Cosmodore?
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:
Ashton should also be removed
Well he opening doxxed ColdTooth thoWitherMite wrote:
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:
Ashton should also be removed
oh rightShinRun wrote:
Well he opening doxxed ColdTooth thoWitherMite wrote:
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:
Ashton should also be removed
Doxxing is inexcusable.ShinRun wrote:
Well he opening doxxed ColdTooth thoWitherMite wrote:
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:
Ashton should also be removed
luckily i didn't join ot on the 4th generation 😮💨ShinRun wrote:
Well he opening doxxed ColdTooth thoWitherMite wrote:
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:
Ashton should also be removed
no. despite being a horrible person, i never did anything bad to be restricted[ Sebastian ] wrote:
Wait, so is igor a Cosmodore?
Good or bad, I don't really like removing pieces of history. OT about to become North Korea
Removing undeserving individuals from a list made to nominate people isn't censoring history.
Hey we can at least have NKPOP!Scyla wrote:
Good or bad, I don't really like removing pieces of history. OT about to become North Korea
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.
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 hereJustABeginner 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.
I'd opt out of becoming denizen as well. Gonna join The Rejects 😎
z0z wrote:
not many of us are here but we're hereJustABeginner 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.
This is fucked up at this point
I am revoking my denizensship
/out
I am revoking my denizensship
/out
I think removing people who did bad stuff in the past is fine, but it's a very fine line, personally I would have not done this, deal and learn from your loses
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
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
OT will turn into a hellhole if that starts happening. And considering abraker's stupid ideas, I would 100% expect him to do that.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
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.
Its not our fault osu doesnt see what igor's been doing as a bannable offense.
what did i do that is illegal? O.oWitherMite 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.
I do not condome or support anything that igor has done, I find it very, very disgusting too
thing is, I dont see how their situation, or the denizen situation in general gains from this change, this is just virtue signaling, denizen problems aren't fixed, but instead, adds something more to worry about (the possibility of people getting removed if they dont meet modern criteria) and also revives the dumpsterfire that is the topic of igor and other person
I understand why you dont want to have bad people in the denizen list, but at the end of the day, I dont think there will be much change at all, I dont think someone is going to decide not to talk in OT because of this, if they know enough where they learn about that, they probably should know what the general opinion is on the matter, I feel this is just adding more fuel to the fire in a very conflictive time in OT, it's just not the right time to do something like this
thing is, I dont see how their situation, or the denizen situation in general gains from this change, this is just virtue signaling, denizen problems aren't fixed, but instead, adds something more to worry about (the possibility of people getting removed if they dont meet modern criteria) and also revives the dumpsterfire that is the topic of igor and other person
I understand why you dont want to have bad people in the denizen list, but at the end of the day, I dont think there will be much change at all, I dont think someone is going to decide not to talk in OT because of this, if they know enough where they learn about that, they probably should know what the general opinion is on the matter, I feel this is just adding more fuel to the fire in a very conflictive time in OT, it's just not the right time to do something like this
Can someone please tell me what Igor did. I am so lost.
he like kids[ Sebastian ] wrote:
Can someone please tell me what Igor did. I am so lost.
and if you guys are going to revoke denizens at least say who, why and when. we're not living in the soviet union, people shouldnt dissapear and no one would notice.
I'm printing all generations now fuck it I'm getting paranoid
Oh godPolyspora wrote:
he like kids[ Sebastian ] wrote:
Can someone please tell me what Igor did. I am so lost.
yes, but it's unfair to associate me with illegal thingsPolyspora wrote:
he like kids[ Sebastian ] wrote:
Can someone please tell me what Igor did. I am so lost.
Liking kids isn't a wrong thing(it is)igorsprite wrote:
yes, but it's unfair to associate me with illegal thingsPolyspora wrote:
he like kids[ Sebastian ] wrote:
Can someone please tell me what Igor did. I am so lost.
But the way you represent it and the past....
the things i did in the past were not illegal, but they were questionable indeed, and it was a long time ago and i don't do those things anymore.Manishh wrote:
Liking kids isn't a wrong thing(it is)igorsprite wrote:
yes, but it's unfair to associate me with illegal thingsPolyspora wrote:
he like kids[ Sebastian ] wrote:
Can someone please tell me what Igor did. I am so lost.
But the way you represent it and the past....
btw i don't think we should discuss it here.
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.
been hesitating to say anything here, since it's hard to determine where things really stand beyond the basics of how denizenship plays a role in user dynamics. i don't know what to make of the rest regarding what any one user did, or to what extent these events might affect denizenship. i'm not sure if it's one way or the other regarding negative feelings, and i'm not sure i can discount these concerns either. they're reasonable questions to have about something that began to hold some intangibly unnatural significance within OT.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.
honestly, i'd probably prefer to hear your thoughts out on that one. shouldn't have to solve it alone, and i think some here may be more willing to consider this than impressions may have seemed.
I will be acting as the messenger for the parliament and in a few hours, I will be dming messages to people who reached 8 months of activity and is qualified for denizenship.
Upon receiving my message, if you wish to receive denizenship, you will send me back a list of contribution back which I will then present back to the parliament and decide whether you qualify.
I understand that you guys don’t want to become a denizen under this system but if you wish for real change, become denizen, get voted into parliament and maybe even president, and fix the system.
I wish you all the best,
ShinRun
Upon receiving my message, if you wish to receive denizenship, you will send me back a list of contribution back which I will then present back to the parliament and decide whether you qualify.
I understand that you guys don’t want to become a denizen under this system but if you wish for real change, become denizen, get voted into parliament and maybe even president, and fix the system.
I wish you all the best,
ShinRun
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.[ Sebastian ] wrote:
Answer me this: What counts as a contribution? There's been a lack of explanation at that end.
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 thisghoulybits wrote:
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.[ Sebastian ] wrote:
Answer me this: What counts as a contribution? There's been a lack of explanation at that end.
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.
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.Patatitta wrote:
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 thisghoulybits wrote:
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.[ Sebastian ] wrote:
Answer me this: What counts as a contribution? There's been a lack of explanation at that end.
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.
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.
quote="ghoulybits"]
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.[/quote]
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.Patatitta wrote:
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 thisghoulybits wrote:
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.[ Sebastian ] wrote:
Answer me this: What counts as a contribution? There's been a lack of explanation at that end.
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.
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.[/quote]
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
Patatitta wrote:
quote="ghoulybits"]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.Patatitta wrote:
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 thisghoulybits wrote:
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.[ Sebastian ] wrote:
Answer me this: What counts as a contribution? There's been a lack of explanation at that end.
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.
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[/quote]
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.
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.
mmh. i actually think those are some good points.
granted, i also doubt it's particularly new as a subject. the exploitation of systems for gain is not uncommon, and i think part of what influenced that was how denizenship came to be encouraged over time. some discourse similar to this came up back then too, with discerning how contribution would be scaled and imitated.
but at some point, i'm getting the sense that some of the conflict is also in the intentions being relatively informal, while may denizens will still see this and find reason to need some security in more solid distinctions
granted, i also doubt it's particularly new as a subject. the exploitation of systems for gain is not uncommon, and i think part of what influenced that was how denizenship came to be encouraged over time. some discourse similar to this came up back then too, with discerning how contribution would be scaled and imitated.
but at some point, i'm getting the sense that some of the conflict is also in the intentions being relatively informal, while may denizens will still see this and find reason to need some security in more solid distinctions
ghoulybits wrote:
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.Patatitta wrote:
quote="ghoulybits"]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.Patatitta wrote:
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 thisghoulybits wrote:
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.[ Sebastian ] wrote:
Answer me this: What counts as a contribution? There's been a lack of explanation at that end.
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.
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
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
The quotes seem to be fucking broken lmao no amount of editing is saving my soul
tried to make it more reasonableghoulybits wrote:
The quotes seem to be fucking broken lmao no amount of editing is saving my soul
ghoulybits wrote:
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. [/quote]Patatitta wrote:
quote="ghoulybits"]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.Patatitta wrote:
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 thisghoulybits wrote:
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.[ Sebastian ] wrote:
Answer me this: What counts as a contribution? There's been a lack of explanation at that end.
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.
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
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.[/quote]
this system doesn't really help with people leaving after denizen tho, adding extra steps to the process can not aliviate someone being burned out of OT and using the fact they got denizen as an excuse to leave
is there anything this system actually fixes?
Patatitta 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.ghoulybits wrote:
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.Patatitta wrote:
quote="ghoulybits"]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.Patatitta wrote:
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 thisghoulybits wrote:
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.[ Sebastian ] wrote:
Answer me this: What counts as a contribution? There's been a lack of explanation at that end.
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.
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
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.[/quote]
this system doesn't really help with people leaving after denizen tho, adding extra steps to the process can not aliviate someone being burned out of OT and using the fact they got denizen as an excuse to leave
is there anything this system actually fixes?[/quote]
What this system does fix is the high amounts of people (particularly from gen 7) who would post solely to get denizen and nothing else.
Denizenship is a mark of some sort of significant contribution to OT, and what better way to measure that than to have contribution as a requirement?
Also, I suggest you reply to this in a fresh post without quoting it because there's just. Something wrong here. Lord knows what happened with the bbcode
Thanks for finally explaining what being a denizen is.ghoulybits wrote:
Denizenship is a mark of some sort of significant contribution to OT...
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.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?
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:
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.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?
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.
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.Polyspora wrote:
2 years is not much, considering OT lifetime.ghoulybits wrote:
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.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?
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.