Godsmacks opinion

[Fiz]

I would like to add to what I said earlier by saying that the Global blacklist should only be used for major issues it should not be used for 1 time issue cases or some small spat. If its someone who is continuously causing issues and continuously evades bans should be put on it. Not just some punk who causes a little bit of an issue. I think that limiting what goes on the blacklist is a better idea then creating some huge complicated mess of a council thats only going to cause a big issue. My idea of it being ran by the community is making sure that blacklists are available for server admins and letting the server admins manage their lists and only getting involved in major cases. The more you try to control globally the worse its going to get. The more political bullshit gets in there and believe me it will not help I promise you it will not. No matter how many different "levels" of of people you let in the council. Also the larger the council gets or is the worse it will be. People have different opinions and they clash and its even worse when dealing with a younger bunch.

[V-Wifey]

I strongly agree with Fiz also.

[DES|Anderson]

@Jason your point is taken, although i still believe Smacky is right for the job!

@Fiz I understand entirely what you are saying, i am no spring checken here and was involved in many commiitees and forums in my time and essentially I would agree if you get 20 people and say to them come up with an agreed stance on anything you will have disagreement. But this is the whole point, every group i have been involved with only works because of the differences, instead of trying to all be the same and agree lets celebrate our differences yes we may not always agree with decisions but as long as you feel your opinion was heard its a easier pill to swallow.

One last comment on BL, i dont want to create an elite of anything like that. All I was looking for was another choice, a BL created and managed by the players of this community. And although i agree with many of the points raised here I firmly believe that the people controling the bL should be players not clan leaders or devs just regular players. The kind of people who are the backbone of this game they play daily, they just want a good time and to have fun without any bullsh*t politics in the way.

@Tipper I appologize for being so active on this subject, but I feel so strongly that the game is too political i felt i had to do something.

[Hellspell]

isn't it weird how I dont use a blacklist and get no hackers on my server whatsoever?
I've changed my mind I f2 this council thing, it'll just create a group of players who think they are the elite of ac, much like we already have now.
There's no need to change anything. Just because someone's banned on one server does not create a problem, there's plenty of other servers for them to play on, likely run by better admins.

[kaz]

this is my opinion ...

what would this "group" help ?
i see you saying that the model that is used now isn't the best , why ?
if you own a server you can have your own blacklist and / or use the one you prefer , if people are using TyD , NZ , Log n Frag or anyother BL , is because they agree with what is there ,or they would not use it ...
if someone is blacklisted because the server owner doesnt like him, is ok you can go to another server instead of evading bans and creating a huge issue , but seems that people dont get it .
if you do not like the popular blacklists , you can create your own and use/share it .


there is no need to create this group , as if they say that someone didn't cheat and the server owner say that this someone cheated ... only more problems ...

as i said this is my opinion, just let the way it is now .

[Hellspell]

this is my opinion ...
[...............]
as i said this is my opinion, just let the way it is now .

+1

[Shorty]

I think Utah for Chairman, because hes been gone for 6 months and is oblivious to all 'bad feelings' between players/clans.. and now hes back.. and hes a machine..

[C4rma]

Okey, how should this so called council get selected? By the players? In that case it will still very much be a popularity interest and member of clans will try to vote in their own to stand strong inside this council.

[V-Wifey]

If your going to take on the responsibility of a server, wouldn't it make sense to maintain your own blacklist as part of the big shabang? I don't understand why that's not the social norm.

But, giving everyone the benefit of the doubt, let's say time is the issue. Then a task force should provide some convenience.

There is no "right" or "wrong" way. Seems there has been a lot of success in some servers maintaining less main-stream form of BL'ing. To those people -- there is no pressure to conform. Keep doing what your doing! You should have confidence in the way you run your server.

For those responsible server owners who have attempted to keep a BL or are a little disappointed in the BL tools available -- you may find interest in a new short cut, there are individuals willing to volunteer their time to keep an updated BL for your DL'ing pleasure.

---

@ C4rma - I would hope that anyone with integrity would avoid such shallow means of furthering the recognition of themselves or their clan.

I will stand firm that the members need to be switched out yearly. All of us find busy times IRL that keep us from being active in AC from time to time.

- We'll need a council who will be up-to-date with activities going on around the community.
- We'll need to avoid the risk of trapping ourselves in with someone who is power hungry.
- We'll need frequent, fresh prospective on the new exploits that inevitably threaten each release.
- We'll need Someone who will honor the position, and commit to a reasonable and predictable time frame of duty in the council so AC and real life responsibilities don't choke him.
- We'll need someone who will not eventually become too lazy to review the evidence because "I've been doin' this for years. It's all the same"
- We'll need to avoid trapping ourselves in with someone who unexpectedly becomes bias to some members or groups, or uses anger to make decisions.

[Lantry]

Council should consist of clan leaders and non-clan leaders.

clan membership should not be considered. when considering people for this Task Force, it should be like clans don't even exist.

Forum Mods are already approved by the devs, so toss in a few of those.
Toss in a few "average joes".

Pick council members by nomination. 3-5 nominations puts them in the polls. That person can decline to run for council or accept prior to the poll date.

Council members should be voted in yearly to avoid "power trippers", clan debates, favoritism or suspected "secret conspiracies" that are going on in private.

If someone submits a request to the blacklist would these requests be reviewed privately, and the council decides privately who to include on the list? This would avoid flaming or lies that might be told by someone trying to accuse the person being submitted for BL'ing.

I believe that it should be reviewed privately. What would be the point in taking such care in picking a task force if their actions were visible for everyone to comment on?

as for cycling the members, I agree that you shouldn't be allowed to be on the task force for two consecutive years. Other than that, I don't care if they have over nine thousand total terms, as long as they are forced to take a break.

as for the amount of members on this task force, I believe it should be a reasonably large number, ~12. this way, if a bad apple happens to get in, he/she will be outweighed by the rest, while still keeping the amount low enough that you will have enough active people to maintain the gap year.

Other than what I have specified, I agree with V-wifey and Fiz, especially on the points of how the BL should be used and not forcing anyone to use this BL; it should be for the people who don't want to maintain their own list.