Administrator's Creed.

The Mad Hatter wrote:--Just because you make it a tenant doesn't mean it doesn't happen. If you want an elaboration feel free to PM me, I don't want them crying at me. I've had enough of some people disagreeing with what I say only because I said it.

No it doesn't but this has it covered. were not talking "will they do it" we are talking more of what they should be doing.

if you wanna argue the topic of something I made, ill be glad to.

This is a guideline for admins. A buddy of an admin getting special treatment isn't impartial. This is there to guide people away from doing that. Is everyone going to listen? No. But if they are breaking the Creed, such as in favoritism, perhaps that should flag them as someone that maybe should have their position as an admin questioned and reviewed.

PS. I dont know who the feth you are and I really dont care. Your a person. 'Nuff for me. You get the same treatment as everyone else from me, whether you like it or not.

Kinseth, when you posted this, I read all of it. Once I read it, I thought, its a very good Creed for admins to sitck by. If they get stuck, they could just take a quick look at this, and, they can become fair, but good admins!

I also thought that Tenant 3, was a bit too long!

Are there any objections to this being stickied? This way perhaps I could get more comments and suggestions on the creed.

jameless wrote:Right you could add a command in the menu but this returns to my previous point. If an admin isn't there to add the person before the person leaves, you would have to add him/her manually. More than likely this would be after the issue has already happened and the person who created the problem more than likely is off to another server to annoy someone else. Stripping their option to vote wouldn't be practical except if the admin is in the game already. In this case it would affect tenant 1.5 directly. If you only let the people you agree with vote you are then directing votes in your favor.

Missed this.

This is a real grey area but there is only one way to make it final. scratch the vote block and if dicks are running server, let them run. They are still players. You still get points for them, It brings in more dick-like players. You still get server popularity, just in a way you may not expect.

Great point Jameless. I'm embarrassed I missed it.

The Mad Hatter wrote:While I agree with you in theory Kinseth, there's too many factors and biases for an admin to determine a "bad vote". If a group of trolls rolls onto the server and starts throwing down inane votes, that's one thing. If a player tries to votemute someone mic spamming that happens to be a buddy of an admin, it's another.

Props to you too, i see what you were ACTUALLY meaning now I think.

While the scenario still falls under impartial in alot of cases, it also may be between 2 people the admin doesnt know and so being impartial doesnt much apply. So the ruling would go to no blocking votes on account on Tenant 1.5 and that if dicks are predominant of the server, they get the run. I have seen this happen due to inactive admins and it actually works out QUITE well. You tend to get a more active, and more competitive server pop, but also in need of more moderating. Thank you Mad Hatter and Jameless.

Stickied.

Welcoming more comments

Not sure if this is posted anywhere due to the large amount of reading i do not won't to endure to look for one minor detail but....

An admin is to uphold the fun for the majority of the players. This is a game and should be treated like such. If the majority is not having fun then the game will never succeed

Goes back to the point that was just recently made.

Majority = Winner

so therfore If Dick = Majority

Then Dick = Winner