What happened to the days when admins just adminned the instead of trying to push ideals and certain ways of playing the game on you.

When was that?

right before "your server your rules" became a thing

Admins became more scummy when the cost of entry came down. Any retard with a few spare bucks can run a QL server now (hell, even some nerdy teenagers who view Quake as a tech project run servers now), while before they were often run by gaming organizations, telcos, clans, etc.

Yeah, admins often power tripped in the past, but I reckon it is worse now. I just wish they'd realize they are the janitors that they are.

When I last talked about this, I suggested a code of conduct for admins, enforceable by id and agreed to by all admins before they are allowed to run a server on the network. This would help to create a more consistent experience across servers and provide a means to report with evidence any power-tripping admin. If QC allows community servers, I think this is how it should be.

"code of conduct for admins," "code of conduct for admins,"

code of conduct for admins

"code
of
conduct
for
admins,"

A community server where a higher power can ban the admins from hosting is not a community server.

"Sorry ika. You useed the " nigger " word when being and admin. Say bye to you're server ;'] " t. The dounut man

Stream it if you're so great? A COC (c o c) is a framework for limiting self expressions. Who is to say what is and isnt art? The idea of a community server is that you can make your own ego and identity. Idee soft takeing this away is not a ssolution: to a problem that does not exist! If you are an admin- it is only your choice. Expression is banning nerds and staying one steap behind. (what if Electronic SR had admins? can you imaigne how BAD it would be? )_ Now apply this: What if ESoports Real had a "(((((Code of conduct?))))) ???? Would Fizzle exist? Would any of the people who make this forum fun to post on exist? What if haeardtless was banned because he violated the )COC ***according to many C'o'C's : this is in fact what he would be banned from. So think about how your s truly: Quake Servers would be like .

t. Ika

You are far more likely to have your self-expression limited by the actions of the admin, who will mute, kick, or ban you for personal reasons.

You know the SJW types you hate so much (something we didn't have to worry about in the old days) are actually attracted to positions of authority and, while they may be a horrendous shit noob themselves, will run a server just for that power.

The code of conduct would limit the admin's behaviour, not the behaviour of players. It's saying what the admin cannot do, not what they must do.

If the admin can't call people "nigger", that's a whole lot better than no one in the server being able to say it or anything else imaginable that the admin and his select group of cronies don't like (e.g. your political views or you just being "problematic").

The only reason I have ever boycotted a Quake server is admin abuse of power. This doesn't become a problem until there is only a few decent servers on the block in a low population game full of people who suck the admin's ass.

the code of conduct would limit the admins behavior, not the behavior of players

Is this the flouride talking? I want the "g'day" back.the cooc is first in the interest to control EVERYTHING (why stop in at the top?) ;0 any frame-work for contrlling behavioral issues is obviously the same for alll. Ok ? If you don't know that the CODC is a tool used to give the pink boys agency you are a useful idiot and not a number one star. (Look at this site: it's called gut hubs dotcom ) and tell me what you know about the consequences. Anything that disallows me to speak the real truth about the hot opinions is sjew ok? The cock creates a position of power and as long as the poor feelings are safe THEY are in the driving seats ;5 ...?|

Anyone's who knew about the - Fun server knows all the H'white community is banned for day one by ideesoftw for an identity on you're framework ; this post is retardation of the matrix

I dunno what you're on about, but you're gonna get a bunch of mini-dictators who make the rules up as they go along and then break those rules when it suits them in any case. It happens on a regular basis. If you have a problem with being controlled, you should have a problem with this.

Your ability to express yourself as you wish will be compromised in any case unless you are the one running the server (the minority).

If you had a good admin who didn't abuse their power, the code of conduct wouldn't change that. If you called someone nigger for whatever reason, there's no reason it would be a breach for that admin not to act. How can you breach by NOT acting? But if the admin booted or muted you for saying you voted for Trump, then yes, they could be in breach, and you could report them.

I'm not sure why you think the king of the sandpit is more trustworthy than the company that makes the game.

I think the people who don't want restrictions on what they can do as admin are the very people who are only running the server in the first place because they get off on controlling things and people rather than because they love the game and want to nurture it by contributing.

The sort of thing you're worried about is coming anyway; QC already has a mechanism for reporting players.

The coc inevitably will moderate user behavior. The coc will inevitably moderate what mods can ban people for. Any framework for behavior is bad. In the king of the sandbox analogy you can move to another server or start your own. When idsoft moderates servers you can't escape. "New rule: you can't use the FUN words, from the top" you will be able to breach the coc by willfully neglecting the required rules. The current system is more free because you can run your own server the way you want to. I should not have to explain to you why you shouldn't want I'd to turn qc community servers (if they exist) into trash that is only a safe house. You are thinking of a majic coc that would somehow be tolerable, this doesn't exist. Check out the contributor code of conduct as an example of what would be adopted.

Since a server admin is not some kind of employee who has to meet performance requirements, the agreement they make to be allowed to run a server (and they're gonna have to make one of some kind or another) could only restrict their actions, not their lack of action.

The game already HAS an agreement for the behaviour of players. Pretty much every game does. You agree to it when you install the game. Is it causing a problem?

Why would an agreement made by the small minority that is server admins be worse?

You have just got triggered by the term "code of conduct" because you've been burnt by it elsewhere. But first, there already is a code of conduct for players, and second, what I'm suggesting applies only to admins.

Thing is, we seem to want the same thing: to play our games and more or less express our personality and thoughts the way we like without being muted, kicked, or banned by sanctimonious types or for personal reasons.

I dunno why you think some random idiot who scrounged up enough chump change to host a server in 2017 is somehow trustworthy.

On the other hand, Zenimax will only care about one thing in the whole universe: profit. Any rules they make will only be to protect that profit. They don't give a shit about anyone's feelings so long as people FEEL like giving them money. I don't believe they can or would want to force some random server admin who doesn't work for them, to ACT in certain ways or be punished. The agreement cannot coerce them to act.

The idea about finding another server with a different idiot running it is all very well and good until you realize it is a low population game, you can't freely follow your friends, and there will only be a small number of full servers, and that those servers can remain popular with their regulars just so long as the admin keeps his abuses below a certain level and in a way that keeps the majority happy.

Of course, this won't protect people like you ika, who want to enter a server and say unpopular things. Your zealous admin will take a great deal of satisfaction thinking he is the hero of the people when he mutes or bans you.

Of course, this won't protect people like you ika, who want to enter a server and say unpopular things. Your zealous admin will take a great deal of satisfaction thinking he is the hero of the people when he mutes or bans you.

Obviously it is because... I will create a server for (un? Not really) popular things ='] Freedom does not mean that people will treat you well, but its better than not having it at all. In a low population game the company stops supporting the game, therefore an admin Coc is not enforced. Any points made about it are moot because of this. The idea is to have an "open game" where anything can happen, I don't agree with how closed QC is (and, so , I dont have to play it...) I am just pointing out how the loss of freedom has too great a price . THere is no good framework for limiting behavior. It is called ownership: The admin is the owner of the server. If you can ban the admin, the admin doesnt own his own server. So, that's no good. If you do not agree with "property" You are a commie and not the ok?

There is no such thing as absolute freedom. Are you an anarchist?

Your freedom ends where other people's rights begin. You have the right not to be murdered; that takes away people's right to murder you. You get banned for cheating. That's taking away your freedom too because others have the "right" to play without cheaters. There's nothing communist about this. It applies in the most USA of USA. I'm no fan of authority, but it is always there deciding what your rights are.

Then the obvious question is whose rights are more important: players' or admins'.

Servers exist to facilitate players playing the game. Admins are just the oil needed to keep the system running smoothly. We don't need people who think running a server is about creating their own personal playground in which they can impose their will arbitrarily---because the game can survive just fine without such people.

If you want the right to freedom of speech on a server, you obviously have to take away someone else's right to take away that freedom. Wouldn't you prefer to have that freedom on all servers and not just your own? 99%+ of players aren't making their own server just to get basic shit like that.

This isn't about property because while the admin may own the server (not even the case usually; they just pay for hosting), they don't own the game, and they don't create the terms of its use. License agreements are very USA. :P

As far as your views being "unpopular" go, that is probably the wrong word. It is just the sort of thing that seems to be getting you banned, and I think you would get banned less often for such things under the system I'm talking about.

There is no such thing as absolute freedom. Are you an anarchist?

Dont conflate one argument with its extreme (This is called "intellectual dishonesty") Banned from cheating is at the discretion of an authority. Saying what you want on servers is also at the discretion of an authority. Do you want one authority ? Or many, with the potential for less moderation? That is the option (Ideeally , the only bannable offense is cheating.)? And a kick option can do the job of the admin for them .

"Wouldn't you prefer to have that freedom on all servers and not just your own? "

You are assuming that ID will make a majic COC that I would agree with. Again, as I have pointed out, this doesnt exist. That freedom will not exist. The only way for that freedom to exist is for no COC to be in place.

This isn't about property because while the admin may own the server (not even the case usually; they just pay for hosting), they don't own the game, and they don't create the terms of its use. License agreements are very USA. :P

Maybe if you play stupid tim games unlike Q3 which I can own, I can also own my server for it, and I also don't have a "terms of use" just copyright law so I cant sell copies of it. I dont support the STEAM so any game on steam that doesnt have MP I pirate.

I think you would get banned less often for such things under the system I'm talking about.

Every server is a "no fun allowed, id software is watching?" is much worse than a few admins being massive faggots.

The point is rules are everywhere, and there is nothing communist or anti-American about it, and making that point with a bit of rhetoric is not "intellectual dishonesty", as nice as that term may sound. It's exactly the same as you talking about pinkos.

By the way, why does your writing style fluctuate from post to post? Just curious. It's like I'm talking to two people. :D

Yes, I want less use of authority, but you will have an authority one way or the other. Your local admin plays on the same server as you. He is much less likely to be impartial.

In my perfect world, there would be no moderation of language in the game---only a block function and the ability to vote kick (say 15 minute ban to prevent immediate rejoining) by a majority of players in the game. Moderation of language creates a Chilling Effect, so yeah, be gone with it.

The COC won't restrict your freedom as a player, and you have no reason to believe it would. It could only reduce the number of instances of moderation. It would restrict your freedom as a server admin, and that is why you have a problem with it, because you want to be a server admin.

If players can be reported, so too should admins.

I agree you should be able to use software on your own hardware any way you like, so long as it only affects you, and be able to sell the copy you own. So I'm with you on the subject of Steam. However, I wouldn't really be surprised if it were America that invented software as a service rather than a product.

Anyway, I really think you are overstating the problems that would arise from server admins agreeing not to be assholes in order to connect their server to someone else's network to provide a service to someone else's customers playing a game made by someone else.

We probably won't agree now, so I think enough has been said. I don't wanna upset the creator of Red Man! :D

By the way, why does your writing style fluctuate from post to post? Just curious. It's like I'm talking to two people. :D

I am the (Number one) player =] called Ika. So dont beleive what they tell you

I don't wanna upset the creator of Red Man! :D

Its coming up !

I look forward to it. :D

Have you considered not playing on that server?

I am often muted, "slapped for damage," and other abusive things by the admins in OSO, one in particular who goes by the name "." or usually an invisible name. (Clearly his is so unwilling to show his identity because of this behavior.) He has on occasion cheated so that his team could win a game.

Why not just play another server? There are only two CA servers in our area and sometimes one is full or empty. OSO has good people in it and when this one particular admin isn't around, things seem fine.

No name is Viewaskiewer

Lol I joined that server once, got harassed by one of the admins and got called every name possible (I hadn't even said a word at that point). Turns out it was because my elo was too high (which I didn't even know was a thing) and then he went on this big rant about how you should respect someone when you enter their house. I just left and never went back...

I remmeber in 2014 a lot of oso players in: TIER 2 beleived that the LG should be removed from the game =']

OSO is for noobs ;0 first of all , but

Dont you think that , the "toxic" buzzword is meaning less? OSO is gay is a better title

lol

esr in 2017

a lot of words for nothing here , just DDOS the server and thats all . Quick action no talk fast result

w33d

I love love love LG'ing oso players off the server to where they put me in spec


those cute lil cross eyed nerdslops are adorable pets