39 replies · 610 views · thread synced · 7 days ago
· View on torn.com
About this thread
Posts archived:40 / 40 posts (100%) · the total is Torn's reply count + the opening post at the last fetch
Counted by TornLife from the archived posts.
Archived posts
40
Discussion span
→
Authority score
58 / 100
Historical score
24 / 100
Story score
59 / 100
Engagement score
70 / 100
People posting, likes and official posts are not counted for this thread yet: on threads longer than one page they come from a periodic pass over the archive, which has not covered it.
dance[1942592]Committee
· 2 likes · Couple of questions for you 1. What do you mean by 'staff can't play as normal players?' Do you mean they can't play at all? They are limited to certain aspects of the game (e.g. no competitions, no factions, etc.)? …
Nadbash[2183654]
· 1 likes · I think at the very least paid admins/moderators should not be allowed to to play the game. Their accounts should be stripped of all money, posessions, stats etc or as an alternative frozen, to be given back upon their release …
I’ve been playing this game for just over 400 days and don’t want to see it die. Whatever your perspective on exploits, bugs, scripts it is clear that trust is evaporating.
I posted this elsewhere but as there really doesn’t seem to be a thread focussed on CONSTRUCTIVE ideas for change during this period of Torn eating itself here follows some initial ideas for a path forward to better governance.
1) no staff able to play as normal players.
2) bug/exploit reporting made more transparent - no direct chats to staff. Perhaps a “hidden” initial forum report viewable to staff and player committee with audit trail of responses. On resolution made publicly viewable and available for comment.
3) wholesale reform of player committee, including diversity of players - meaning game age/level, play style and other considerations like gender. Perhaps implement “expert” sub committees, on for instance, scripts and casino. Utilise the many talents of the player better. Better transparency and communication/ consultation/ dissemination
A good idea for the scripts would be to make something like a trusted script store(for free than of course), so all the scripts you download there are tested and safe, This is very common in games and software. When you install a script from outside that place it is 100% at your own risk.
1) I'm in two minds on this, I think both views on this have merit. Knowing the game inside out, being well known etc are all positive points. But, in my opinion, bias is part of human nature, and this can cause obvious issues. I really can't decide how to feel either way on this.
2) Absolutely agree that severe exploits should have post-mortem reports. This is increasingly popular in the software world for companies of all sizes and I think it would be invaluable to not only help people understand the process further, but increase accountability and confidence in the staff team.
1) No staff able to play as normal players would be tough for those who have spend many, many years.. To just give up their accounts, would be tough for me personally.. Would then it not be better for staff to be external parties, with player community manager(s) reporting to the external staff and ched? A tough situation for this.. Perhaps a poll on all staff on their thoughts on this?
2) Gender? I'm all for equality but proficiency is more important for me
3) I like the idea of expert sub committees though..
with respect to (1), I think if staff has a signifcant vested interest in their personal account - like you say many years - then clearly this is not acceptable when considering that their influence can affect their own success on TORN.
Exactly this. Even something as trivial as staff participation in competitions is a conflict of interest. I have no personal animosity to Bogie or any of the staff, indeed I feel for his current situation because it wouldn’t have happened in the first place if he was protected by better governance systems.
This may seem irrelevant, but I wonder if Ched or the staff have ever considered hiring an outside company to do a pentest. In my opinion developers need to code like they are being attacked, not just to make the site work and be passable. If there is a bug or exploit to be found in a site of this magnitude you can guarantee that someone else will be considering how to break/exploit it.
I also think it would be useful to have some form of script verification with a warning if it has not been checked by Torn, but you will likely need to contend with people who don't care and just want the immediate benefit. Not sure if that is on Torn or the browser though.
1. What do you mean by 'staff can't play as normal players?' Do you mean they can't play at all? They are limited to certain aspects of the game (e.g. no competitions, no factions, etc.)? They are only allowed to play on staff accounts?
And for staff, are you differentiating between paid and volunteer staff? It is ridiculous to expect non-paid staff to abide by a rule that they can't play normally - part of the reason most volunteer staff are selected is because they love and play the game. AFAIK, other gaming companies don't require volunteer staff/moderators to stop playing the game normally.
2. I think there could be a better way to report bugs than on the forums or through PMs, but disagree that it needs to be 100% transparent to the playerbase. We are not a court or judge or jury. Most games that I've played have a customer support ticket system, which allows players to report bugs/exploits without it being public knowledge.
3. Do you not trust that the committee is looking out for the well-being of all players? Do you want a chance to join the committee? What kind of transparency are you looking for - from my understanding, they are under NDA until they are released from it (e.g. a feature goes public). While reforming the committee sounds good in theory, there needs to be trust that the players won't break NDA / use their knowledge to gain an advantage. That's not really something that is built up overnight.
I do agree that it would be nice if more players could be added to the committee, to hopefully help generate new ideas or replace inactives, but there may also be a limit to how many they feel they can effectively work with.
1 staff are voulenteers, you can't ask them not to play. Paid admins should be professional regardless, if not, take their paycheck, simple.
2. Immediately abusable serious issues should be reported in private. Not taking them seriously is a staff issue. Though players should take them public if staff greenlight them.
3. That'd make the committee useless due to leaks.
The only thing I agree on is vetted scripts and updated to those scripts. Which has been suggested 100*
I think at the very least paid admins/moderators should not be allowed to to play the game. Their accounts should be stripped of all money, posessions, stats etc or as an alternative frozen, to be given back upon their release from the company.
And since it's been stated that "staff are held to a higher standard" then punishments for rule breaking or bias or anything that would violate said elevated standards should be swift, merciless and public as a lesson to future volunteers.
1. Having your staff not actually be in the know of game mechanics is not a good thing. Many studios employ professional level players for gameplay balance reasons. ie: Blizzard hires GM level players to help with Starcraft II balance.
2. Game breaking bugs should be reported in private to prevent people band-wagoning them and making a mountain out of a molehill. The controversy is over a retroactive rule retraction, not that it was reported, and a completely separate issue.
3. The player committee has a lot of people from different 'play styles' and the like already. Since it's all behind locked doors, I'm not sure if I can explain the committee's actual issues without being fedded due to me previously being on it - so I won't unless the boss man says so publicly. (And probably still won't due to rule retractions). As for gender, what does my gender have to do with whether I can play the game or not?