Castle's Trial staff application

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

  • BoSS The Castle [RQ] wrote:

    Greaser i totally agree with you that's why i'm applying for a “Trial position”.
    I have to say I agree with castle here, we have a trial position for a reason - to weed out people not capable of being proper administrators. Around 50% of the past 10 or so admins we've accepted recently never made it past trial, either through inactivity, some form of abuse or behaviour we deemed unacceptable or in novas case just not wanting to prop lmfao.

    Seriously though we've accepted worse people than castle before *cough*dh*cough* and even though most of them never made it through trial there's no reason why castle can't, so for what it's worth I'm still suggesting that castle should be accepted for this role.

  • The Doggy wrote:

    BoSS The Castle [RQ] wrote:

    Greaser i totally agree with you that's why i'm applying for a “Trial position”.
    I have to say I agree with castle here, we have a trial position for a reason - to weed out people not capable of being proper administrators. Around 50% of the past 10 or so admins we've accepted recently never made it past trial, either through inactivity, some form of abuse or behaviour we deemed unacceptable or in novas case just not wanting to prop lmfao.
    Seriously though we've accepted worse people than castle before *cough*dh*cough* and even though most of them never made it through trial there's no reason why castle can't, so for what it's worth I'm still suggesting that castle should be accepted for this role.

    Ummm I stepped down thank you for personal reasons and Volar said I could always post on the original app and say I would like to try again. I was in the process of learning how to prop but someone, not naming names was constantly yelling at me. Trial isn’t a bad idea but let’s remember there’s already some admins who don’t want him to be one so they will watch him and any slip up he makes they might say he’s abusing or something and want his trial taken right then and there no questions asked.
    “no admin for nova“- The Doggy 7/3/2018 @21:50pm (9:50pm)

  • Novaaa wrote:

    there’s already some admins who don’t want him to be one so they will watch him and any slip up he makes they might say he’s abusing or something and want his trial taken right then and there no questions asked.
    But that doesn't happen? There's always an investigation launched into an abuse claim and without evidence nothing will be done... Remember when dh was fucking shit up and Naujoji was digging into him hard af but we didn't strip him until we all knew he was being a fuckhead?

  • The Doggy wrote:

    BoSS The Castle [RQ] wrote:

    Greaser i totally agree with you that's why i'm applying for a “Trial position”.
    I have to say I agree with castle here, we have a trial position for a reason - to weed out people not capable of being proper administrators. Around 50% of the past 10 or so admins we've accepted recently never made it past trial, either through inactivity, some form of abuse or behaviour we deemed unacceptable or in novas case just not wanting to prop lmfao.
    Seriously though we've accepted worse people than castle before *cough*dh*cough* and even though most of them never made it through trial there's no reason why castle can't, so for what it's worth I'm still suggesting that castle should be accepted for this role.

    I know what you're saying, but trial shouldn't be used to see someone's trustworthiness in itself. I think it serves more of a purpose of whether or not that already trustworthy player, can handle the Job/commitment and enforce the rules fairly and honestly. If we used trial as a way to test trustworthiness, why even have an application process in the first place?
    #HailTheGoldenPoon

  • Greaser wrote:

    The Doggy wrote:

    I know what you're saying, but trial shouldn't be used to see someone's trustworthiness in itself. I think it serves more of a purpose of whether or not that already trustworthy player, can handle the Job/commitment and enforce the rules fairly and honestly. If we used trial as a way to test trustworthiness, why even have an application process in the first place?
    This.

  • To Clitcommander: I agree. Maybe I just don't understand what "trial" means. I am asking for a tryout. I knew when I decided to do this that people would oppose me. I even admit they have good reasons based on my behavior many years ago. I'm not on here arguing or trying to make excuses. I was an asshole...bottom line. I am also not that same person today (because years have passed). I have always valued my role in this community. That's why I took my time to do this application as completely as possible. To show respect. To demonstrate that I take this seriously and am asking for an honest shot. I don't like how few players we have these days. People complain that there aren't admins on when we need them. I want to step up to make this better, not worse. The politics and negativity is more than I expected, but also I've gained a lot of respect for the people who took the time to consider me and respond. Either way, glad I put it out there.

    CLITCOMMANDER wrote:


    The post was edited 1 time, last by BoSS The Castle [RQ] ().

  • Greaser wrote:

    The Doggy wrote:

    BoSS The Castle [RQ] wrote:

    Greaser i totally agree with you that's why i'm applying for a “Trial position”.
    I have to say I agree with castle here, we have a trial position for a reason - to weed out people not capable of being proper administrators. Around 50% of the past 10 or so admins we've accepted recently never made it past trial, either through inactivity, some form of abuse or behaviour we deemed unacceptable or in novas case just not wanting to prop lmfao.Seriously though we've accepted worse people than castle before *cough*dh*cough* and even though most of them never made it through trial there's no reason why castle can't, so for what it's worth I'm still suggesting that castle should be accepted for this role.
    I know what you're saying, but trial shouldn't be used to see someone's trustworthiness in itself. I think it serves more of a purpose of whether or not that already trustworthy player, can handle the Job/commitment and enforce the rules fairly and honestly. If we used trial as a way to test trustworthiness, why even have an application process in the first place?
    I'm saying to use trial exactly as you've described, to see if that player "can handle the Job/commitment and enforce the rules fairly and honestly." Think of it like applying for a job, people that don't have a degree or a shitty resume aren't even going to be considered most of the time, same kinda thing here with the application process being mainly a barrier to weed out the lowest of the low e.g. people who fill out the application terribly, people who we know for a fact would not do well in an administration position and the application also gives some insight into the qualities of the applicant such as patience - "do they constantly ask people to look at their application?" (which we've actually denied people for before), anyway I'm rambling now, basically my point is to give castle a shot at trial to judge how he handles actually having some kind of responsibility on the server.

  • +1
    I've Been around the server now for a bit and feel I do have a vested interest in who becomes admin. My experiences with mister Castle have never really been "bad". I haven't noticed any exploits or cheating. and as far as instability, Well all the admins here are opinionated. and cops vs. robbers role play can be very... incendiary. I have seen this guy be helpful to other players and offer assistance when asked or someone obviously needs it. He tends to play with respect to the shield. and the LAW. I feel our little town can also use a solid supply of new blood to keep it flowing. I do love my red streets. I give this punk Castle a +1 for trial because i feel he is worth a shot. If he screws up though, I'd feed him to Lord Doom. Then post it on Youtube.

  • @The Doggy I just think he could’ve used some more time to show that he’s not the same person playing the “changed man” card. Most of the admins are giving him -1’s because he was a terrible player in the past and they don’t trust him. If he’s going to be working with us, he has to know that we operate as one unit on the server and need his trust and coordination with all of the admins.
    #HailTheGoldenPoon

  • +1

    I am new here, but I have played with Castle elsewhere and have always had good experiences with him. He definitely does good advertising for this place...always bugging me to come here and build up this community. He is a solid dude. I would be a lot more likely to spend time here with people like him in admin.

    The post was edited 1 time, last by BlackFish715 ().

  • BoSS The Castle [RQ] wrote:

    i Wish for the people who feel this way to come on the server and get in information that is not 2 years old. every single person who has given me a +1 are the active players who have taken the time to be on the server and have seen my performance.
    Here's some information that's not 2 years old :
    YOLO (AKA CASTLE) BAN (STEAM ID# U:1:138021381)
    Banned for 30 days on Jan 30 2018 , for killing under tens , ignoring admins , impersonating admins.

  • HAND OF DOOM wrote:

    BoSS The Castle [RQ] wrote:

    i Wish for the people who feel this way to come on the server and get in information that is not 2 years old. every single person who has given me a +1 are the active players who have taken the time to be on the server and have seen my performance.
    Here's some information that's not 2 years old :YOLO (AKA CASTLE) BAN (STEAM ID# U:1:138021381)
    Banned for 30 days on Jan 30 2018 , for killing under tens , ignoring admins , impersonating admins.
    As a convicted gameserver felon I have to agree with doom (and other skeptics such as Greaser). If the amount of negative activity (the span of time is the best indicator imo) is greater than the amount of positive activity then administrator is not a good idea. As Thunder said, this isn't rehab.

    In general I would agree with Doggy's statement about trial except for one thing: Castle has been on consistently good behavior for a while now. This could mean he is changed for the better (in which case waiting a few more weeks should not hurt) or it could mean he has learned how to hide his intentions better. If the latter is true, it is likely that a trial period will not do much to weed him out, as he will know to be on good behavior.

    Thus, I have to give a -1

  • Yes castle has had a rocky past but he has the experience and has shown that he cares for the community and wants to put the time forward to becoming a good admin and expanding the community and half life dedicated at this point i think it is ridiculous he is not already on a trial still a +1 from me

  • takes personal offense to alot of ingame encounters, i think his already having been trial admin and past play time had shown he was unfit, most of the accusations of how he used to be seem to mirror similiarly to things done now at a lower volume but still not enough for admin, i think cop is a good profession for you, admin not so much. :love: