TeamSpeak clean-up

[Ronin Storm]

Not really a wall of text Ronin - it sums up what has been said so far quite well and i quite like your closing hierarchical example.

Well, more wall-ish than most of my posts of late.

 

[luc]

Broadly, I agree with you, but with caveats.

Foremost, THN operates in a federated meritocracy. While we (the Admins) need to maintain a semblance of control because otherwise our maintenance tasks become unmanageable, we also need to keep our "authorisation" tasks at a low ebb. Mostly, THN just ticks along and we don't need to do much with it, but partly that's because we control certain critical elements and have, in full knowledge, left other bits to fall where they may. I guess the thing to remember is that we all do this in our spare time and, in my case, directly taken out of time I could have put at paid work.

So, what's more likely is that we'd create some basic structure that is inviolable, provide the usual federated permissions to people we can trust, and then let them get on with whatever it was that they were doing, including proliferation (in a limited way) permissions to make their lives easier too.

A fair statement. To clarify "admin" was a generic term used in this instance, and intervals were left to be decided as per requirement (if any). I understand the provision of a framework, but I suppose why I had such a cut down was due to gauging need, therefore providing a malleable layout/system from the ground up in order to cater for this over time; so a similar discussion to this doesn't occur in the future. I fully understand the spare time contribution paradigm (see: Maritime Games), not something with which I was going to encroach on; indeed I was quite intrigued to see the statement. I work full time myself, and have various projects I contribute to in my spare time, in no-way was my idea to be an undue nor inordinate amount of effort; my intention, for instance, was to not rule out delegation.

Considering inviolable structures, is there a gauge for what are the required (either now, or later) channels now for the clean-up? My concern is that if the channels are going to be re-categorised (with a lesser focus on removal) is that merely shoving it all in the broom cupboard as opposed to a proper clean; or not?

 

[Ronin Storm]

I fully understand the spare time contribution paradigm (see: Maritime Games), not something with which I was going to encroach on; indeed I was quite intrigued to see the statement.

It's a thing I trot out when people ask for stuff, partly in defence of the team where I've basically asked for volunteer time, when they can, but with some light ongoing nudges from me when we seem to be drifting. I guess I'm just trying hard to not make the Mods and Admins feel like they're not doing enough. (They do a good job and I love them all. )

In my case, it's because I work for myself so, in a big way, all time is work time. Fortunately, I also choose what I do, so it's not a bad thing. I draw that out, in particular, because my availability for any serious work on THN has been really low for maybe three years, so it's a explanation-come-apology-of-a-sort for not doing more.

Also, it's Aspie talk for "please understand me". I do that a lot. Fret not.

Considering inviolable structures, is there a gauge for what are the required (either now, or later) channels now for the clean-up? My concern is that if the channels are going to be re-categorised (with a lesser focus on removal) is that merely shoving it all in the broom cupboard as opposed to a proper clean; or not?

I think this is a sweeping job turned larger, rather than a larger job cut down to sweeping.

I'm all for "throw it all out and do it anew, but my way" but there's only so much wah I can handle. I guess we'll pick a middle ground that involves terminating a handful of unused channels and sorting the rest into a structure that'll tide us over for another year or so.

That said, I think our requirements and understanding subtly shift over time. I don't believe we can get it right in perpetuity with any particular change.

 

[luc]

I'm all for "throw it all out and do it anew, but my way" but there's only so much wah I can handle. I guess we'll pick a middle ground that involves terminating a handful of unused channels and sorting the rest into a structure that'll tide us over for another year or so.

That said, I think our requirements and understanding subtly shift over time. I don't believe we can get it right in perpetuity with any particular change.

I was putting forth a proposal not an ultimatum, so more "You could throw it all out and do it anew, here's an idea". I think by the nature of the discussion this is inherently about compromise and reaching an amicable solution. Again it falls back onto this issue of determining unused, if there is a method then it's all good.

That said, I think our requirements and understanding subtly shift over time. I don't believe we can get it right in perpetuity with any particular change.

Considering inviolable structures, is there a gauge for what are the required (either now, or later) channels now for the clean-up?

For a given value of "later", the idea wasn't to propose a catch all that would provide an ad infinitum method of dealing with it, but at least for some time.

 

[Ronin Storm]

I think it's possible that we may be cautiously circling an accord, here.

 

[Ki!ler-Mk1]

I thought most of what ronin said was hard for me to understand, and as a result felt like a load of waffle, though i like the new structure suggestion. I am against named personal channels, and i am against hiding in a channel and either removing other people, or leaving a channel if someone else joins.

A simple set of 5 chat rooms at the bottom of the server would serve everyones needs, with generic names, eg, Spare Chat Room #1-5.

When someone enters a room where i am, i greet them etc etc and i dont ask them to leave (If they are non responsive over 5-10 min i might relocate), but at the same time i feel too intimidated to enter the 4 currently existing NAMED personal chat rooms - all with their own server admin with the power to kick/ban. When i started using the TS server in feb 2005 there was a small number of server admins and they were all approachable (mostly because they all joined the forum before me).

I think somewhere someone mentioned reducing SAs and increasing CAs? I like this idea, CAs are not intimidating.

 

[Ronin Storm]

I am against named personal channels

While in principle I agree, in practise I think they still serve a useful purpose that wouldn't be similarly served by the creation of generic "rooms". Named identity is important to people, as is the ability to have a private VoIP chat; neither of these are the primary purpose of our TS server, however.

personal chat rooms - all with their own server admin with the power to kick/ban.

To be clear, kick/ban from TS without due cause would be grounds for Admin investigation/intervention. That said, following up on that would end up being an anecdotal investigation as the substance of who said/did what would be difficult to track.

 

[Ki!ler-Mk1]

To be clear, kick/ban from TS without due cause would be grounds for Admin investigation/intervention. That said, following up on that would end up being an anecdotal investigation as the substance of who said/did what would be difficult to track.

I said "the power to". Not the high likely hood of. Its like guns; people with them are intimidating doesnt mean they will shoot you.

 

[thatbloke]

so to bump this, as the channels seem to have bene re-arranged lately, the following comment is present in the shoutbox:

[Today 18:44] Zillet: What happened to the good ol' Defiant and Guardian subchannels in rift?

...any reason why I shouldn't go ahead and make said subchannels?

 

[Ronin Storm]

...any reason why I shouldn't go ahead and make said subchannels?

Please go ahead, though I see someone already has.