User:Sirdog/ByB Community: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
|image=ByB logo.jpg | |image=ByB logo.jpg | ||
|image_size=150px | |image_size=150px | ||
|caption= | |caption= | ||
|owner=Pantho | |owner=Pantho | ||
|estab=2009 | |estab=2009 |
Revision as of 02:54, 12 December 2022
![]() | This community is inactive or has shut down. Community owned services may be unmaintained, stale, or no longer exist. |
ByB was a casual online community that hosted Garry's Mod DarkRP servers from 2009[1] to 2017.[2] The community was officially shutdown by it's owner on June 30, 2020.[3]
![]() | |
General Information | |
---|---|
Established | 2009 |
Owner | Pantho |
Registered Members | 13,451 (as of August 21, 2016[4]) |
Joining Process | Participation |
Website | Website (archive) |
Social Media | |
STEAM | STEAM group |
Structure
Joining process
Joining the community was done by playing on the servers and optionally creating an account on their forums.
User expectations
The rules for all services the community maintained were held collectively on a single page.[5] Rules relating to communications, such as the forum or TeamSpeak, leaned on staff member autonomy with little specificity.
On the DarkRP servers, rules were more expansive in relation to player combat and base building. This was purportedly due to years of arguing with players by staff in attempts to maintain fairness. For example, the size of shooting windows was specified down to the pixel.
Governance
The community made use of a linear rank structure where each position in the chain generally had authority over those beneath it. At the top was the community's owner, of who had complete and total control over everything. The community had a single owner for the entirety of it's existence, Pantho, and he historically did not make major decisions of consequence unilaterally.
Below the owner were root administrators, which acted as a pseudo council or group of advisors to the owner. They had total access to all community assets, including the source code for hosted services, and they possessed sweeping authority over community structure and governance. Generally, root administrators also had some programming knowledge to assist with the upkeep and innovation of services, though it was never stated to be a requirement. Becoming a root administrator was done by appointment of the owner.
Below the root administrators were super administrators, which mainly served as the managers of the staff team underneath them. They had access to an exclusive forum board for discussing sensitive issues and had full access to administrative tools. Their primary duty, aside from general moderation of player behavior, would be to investigate tickets submitted against staff members of abuse and observe staff members covertly on hosted services for misconduct. Becoming a super administrator was done via a nomination-style system.
Following super administrators were trusted administrators, of who acted as advanced administrators. They did not possess authority the administrators that were beneath them, but they were granted the ability to investigate tickets relating to player abuse, ban globally from all servers, and greater access to administrative tools. Their primary duty was responding to tickets and mentoring administrators. Becoming a trusted administrator was done via the nomination-style system mentioned above.
Below trusted administrators were administrators, who acted as the moderation team for hosted services. They were responsible for overseeing player behavior on the DarkRP servers and issuing discipline as necessary. They would also be responsible for submitting tickets on the forum requesting elevated discipline in the event it was warranted and their own permissions were insufficient. Becoming an administrator was done either by purchasing the position on the website.
Nomination system
Going above a base administrator was done via nomination, wherein a member of the relevant rank would post in a section of the forum that only that rank (and higher) could see suggesting promotion. Participants would then provide support or opposition to the individual in the form of replying. After an arbitrary period a root administrator would evaluate the discussion and determine whether there was agreement to promote. Root administrators notably had the power to "veto" nominations, in that they could unilaterally block a promotion. Regardless of the outcome, once the discussion concluded, the thread would be moved to a root administrator only section of the forum (though if promotion was successful, it was done prior to assigning view permissions). This was done so that participants could speak freely without worry of judgment from the subject.
Purchasing rank
Currency | Price (1 month) | Price (3 months) | Price (12 months) |
---|---|---|---|
USD | $7 | $18 | $48 |
Pound | £6 | £15 | £40 |
Currency | Price (1 month) | Price (3 months) | Price (12 months) |
---|---|---|---|
USD | $12 | $30 | $61 |
Pound | £10 | £25 | £50 |
A subject of debate in the community was the fact that one could purchase administrator, which came with all of the insinuated powers. The purchase was subscription based, needing to renewed every 1, 3, or 12 months. Players had the option to pay to be an administrator for a single server or all of them, with the fee being greater for the latter. A notable ability granted only to administrators was noclip, which many players sought after for base building. The exclusion was purposeful, as the owner made it clear that purchasing the rank for that reason alone was okay, and that administrators were not required to answer calls for help.
A subscription was also necessary for trusted administrators to maintain in game powers, though their rank was inherently global and so they paid the single-server price. They also maintained the ability to globally ban regardless of their subscription status. Subscriptions were not necessary for super administrators and higher.
Proponents of the system argued that it was necessary to pay the operating cost of hosted services, that the owner could do what they wished, and that super administrators adequately handled disruption by bad actors. Opponents of the system found it to be ethically unacceptable to grant authority over others at a cost, that the disruption even if adequately addressed still turned away potential players, and that it discouraged prospective staff members who wished to help but could not afford it.
The system remained until the community shutdown.