Discussion solely on the topic of how to bring back SA:MP server

[Chase]

A community will only thrive when you have an active team of people including owners set on the same mission.

Do you really want the owners to come back? Do you remember what happened the few times they appeared? Just sayin', be careful what you wish for.

[Nathan]

.

[Brian]

I’m calling for owners, not THE owners. This could be anyone - I honestly think that Wdoyle would be best fit. A ship without a captain or a rudder will only continue sinking.

I am genuinely curious on why/ how adding a new owner will improve the community.
Say we were to make Wdoyle the owner, what will change that'll benefit the community, how will the hierarchy change, how will it benefit leadership.

What will a change in title from "community leader" to "owner" do to change things. Wouldn't it be better to have a role where you can actually switch people out when the time comes rather than have people yet again fill a "dictator" style role where one person can make decisions even if the entire community is against it?

[Badandy]

In the past two weeks, I have been in contact with all three community leaders. I would say they aren't absent. I have never talked to the owners, maybe once a decade ago.

[Kessu]

A community will only thrive when you have an active team of people including owners set on the same mission.

Do you really want the owners to come back? Do you remember what happened the few times they appeared? Just sayin', be careful what you wish for.

I’m calling for owners, not THE owners. This could be anyone - I honestly think that Wdoyle would be best fit. A ship without a captain or a rudder will only continue sinking.

That would change nothing.

Community Leaders can already do almost anything that the community needs. Should something happen, such as forums going down in a way we can't fix, we have a pretty fast line of communication to owners to get things fixed.

As for claims that there's no leaders, I don't know if you stuck your head up your own ass so deep you can't see, but we're quite active. We just don't go around the forums shouting about every group chat we've got going on and how we get ignored while being talked to

[Mario_Rinna]

Or 1 account = multiple characters, that's also common. Login/acc name doesn't have to match character name.

Yeah, I don't see how "different skin = different character" makes sense either. Nobody's got the time to keep track of somebody else's skins.

They have not been involved in any matter whatsoever since RS5 from my standpoint.

And we know what how well things have been going without them.

If you want something done right, then you should do it yourself.

So you are suggesting a coup d'etat?

Not when I initially joined. Groups got along, people had fun. It wasn't as toxic and aggressive as it was the last few years of activity.

I think it may not be an Argonath problem, but a worldwide problem, because the pAnDeMiC, etc.

Do you remember what happened the few times they appeared? Just sayin', be careful what you wish for.

What happened? Couple of people who forgot whose place this is ended up having their ass handed to them? (This is an assumption of what could've happened, not an opinion of it. I'm genuinely asking.)

Do you really want the owners to come back?

Yes. Stop shaking, friend.

Why wouldn't you want to see the return of 2 leaders, who led this place when it came to life, and then successfully kept it alive, while they were around?

Who has the experience of successfully running a popular server? Given the turnover inside SA-MP HQ, there's nobody in it who was in HQ when the server was at its most successful, pre-RS5, and was as close as to possible to what made Argonath Argonath (and not some wannabe-RLRP knockoff that imploded).

What will a change in title from "community leader" to "owner" do to change things. Wouldn't it be better to have a role where you can actually switch people out when the time comes rather than have people yet again fill a "dictator" style role where one person can make decisions even if the entire community is against it?

I suppose if everything was delegated officially, (when this guy is absent, that guy takes over this and this guy takes over that) would improve some people's confidence in what's happening and also help make it look organized (even if it already is).

We just don't go around the forums shouting about every group chat we've got going on and how we get ignored while being talked to

The forums are still the most public façade of the community, and the fact that some leaders barely post make the place look even more abandoned from an outsider's perspective. Also, the state of the forums itself deserves epithets of the kind the digital paper we're using won't be able to handle. Can't modify my own posts, for example.

Also, let's take a look at the fact that there are four webmasters, three of them are community leaders, and yet it still requires "Sauron"'s intervention—which took a while—for websites to come back online. Delayed response. Access not delegated or not available. Somebody here's mentioned that you're (not you in particular) not using Argonath's host for game server(s), but rather your own. Another instance of access lost or not delegated; doesn't really matter which it is. So, what, trust issues? Is there an iota here of esprit de corps, shared by the owners and the CL/DLs? Unlikely, but it's not that I insist on it being a necessity or a requirement.

Chase has asked a somewhat interesting question. What happens if the owners do become as active as they once were, and there's a complete (or just significant, if not complete) difference in opinions? What happens if your MTA:SA server is finished, you're satisfied, and then you're requested to modify it beyond recognition? Do you have a carte blanche to develop what you want to develop (or is this a "while the cat is away, the mice will play" type of situation?), and if you lose it, will you fight for status quo if contested?

[Badandy]

Chase has asked a somewhat interesting question. What happens if the owners do become as active as they once were, and there's a complete (or just significant, if not complete) difference in opinions? What happens if your MTA:SA server is finished, you're satisfied, and then you're requested to modify it beyond recognition? Do you have a carte blanche to develop what you want to develop (or is this a "while the cat is away, the mice will play" type of situation?), and if you lose it, will you fight for status quo if contested?

If the owners would come back and do that. I will say no. The server will be created for players who enjoy San Andreas and I'll be the main developer who will try to do that. The MTA Server is also going to be hosted under the same host used for SAMP at the moment which is a host managed by Brian, Chase, and I. Owners can always give input but I will not be told exactly what to do and how high to jump.

[Mario_Rinna]

If the owners would come back and do that. I will say no. The server will be created for players who enjoy San Andreas and I'll be the main developer who will try to do that. The MTA Server is also going to be hosted under the same host used for SAMP at the moment which is a host managed by Brian, Chase, and I. Owners can always give input but I will not be told exactly what to do and how high to jump.

They'll give input, you'll say "no," they'll insist, and what do you then? Leave? Take the script and fly away?

"Hope for the best, plan for the worst." I was in a situation like that once, and I fought, but I also came to power as a result of a coup and had more than nothing in my pocket (unlike Baron Tesla von Helvetica of Apple, Inc. several posts above), and knew where and how to stand my ground. I can't make judgment on it in retrospect, because I barely have any memories of that conflict. It was more like two friends playing chess, and not a clash of ideologies — unlike what could be here.

Calculated risk, informed decisions, etc. We create the future we deserve.

[Kessu]

The forums are still the most public façade of the community, and the fact that some leaders barely post make the place look even more abandoned from an outsider's perspective. Also, the state of the forums itself deserves epithets of the kind the digital paper we're using won't be able to handle. Can't modify my own posts, for example.

We do participate in conversation when there's something worthwhile to say or someone needs to be corrected when they talk out of their ass. The forums have been god awful for a long time and we know that, it's one of the things we can't just go and change as community leaders. Owners want some things a certain way.
As for editing your own posts, you should be able to as far as I know. We'll take a look.

Also, let's take a look at the fact that there are four webmasters, three of them are community leaders, and yet it still requires "Sauron"'s intervention—which took a while—for websites to come back online. Delayed response. Access not delegated or not available. Somebody here's mentioned that you're (not you in particular) not using Argonath's host for game server(s), but rather your own. Another instance of access lost or not delegated; doesn't really matter which it is. So, what, trust issues? Is there an iota here of esprit de corps, shared by the owners and the CL/DLs? Unlikely, but it's not that I insist on it being a necessity or a requirement.

I'm only webmaster because they have rights that leaders do not despite leaders being higher rank.. don't ask me why

The forums going down was the VM going down, which we can not fix. That requires Sauron and it was a quick response from Sauron while being hospitalized.
Some servers are hosted outside of Argonath's hosting, yes. One reason is we have more control over the host, including it's performance capabilities, storage, operating system etc. With Argonath hosting we would need to go through Sauron for that, and it is unnecessary step. When owners returned they had no issue with servers being hosted outside of Argonath.

Chase has asked a somewhat interesting question. What happens if the owners do become as active as they once were, and there's a complete (or just significant, if not complete) difference in opinions? What happens if your MTA:SA server is finished, you're satisfied, and then you're requested to modify it beyond recognition? Do you have a carte blanche to develop what you want to develop (or is this a "while the cat is away, the mice will play" type of situation?), and if you lose it, will you fight for status quo if contested?

Personally, I've always been able to have a dialog with the owners and come to compromises if things are seen differently and I've also fully went against what they've said and ultimately proven myself to be right, case in point when they refused to take VC:MP back to Argonath's hosting in 2012 so we got our own hosting solution and it's been working wonderfully for 10 years for us.

As for requested to modifying a server that we're happy with, probably ain't gonna happen. I'm fairly sure people would rather resign than go against what they've created. There's no winners if it comes to a standoff, I prefer having an open and honest conversation about the realities of the situation.

Do remember that developers are not paid to do their job, they are free to quit whenever and for whatever reason they wish. The work they've done will remain with Argonath. Same goes for server and community leaders.

[Cutt3r]

Ron and Gandalf made this community. They ran it for more than 10 years (Gandalf especially) before we began seeing less of them. We do not really know why they are inactive. I am of the firm view that we should not make pseudo derogatory statements regarding their inactivity. It's like judging someone who is not represented and could not make it to court.

Let's please focus our time on MTASA. I am looking forward to it. Any little time I have, I spend in-game role-playing by myself on SAMP in the hope that someone will join, eventually. Which brings me back to my idea from a couple of days ago - can we all meet up for just one hour at the start of each month? First Friday or Saturday night?

[Cutt3r]

Another question- how much needs to be paid for having the samp server on the hosted tab?

[Kowalski.]

SA:MP isn't worth it anymore, to be quite frank. I can't imagine many people would want to join even for a planned hour.

In my opinion, the best chances Argo has are on MTA:SA, if you want to see people interested in joining.

[Cutt3r]

SA:MP isn't worth it anymore, to be quite frank. I can't imagine many people would want to join even for a planned hour.

In my opinion, the best chances Argo has are on MTA:SA, if you want to see people interested in joining.

Would SAMP be worth it if people joined? From my quick Google search, hosted tab prices are between 30 and 35 euro. I can spend that for 6 months, till the Mta sa server comes up.

I just need help with choosing the right one. Is this a good idea?

[Badandy]

SA:MP isn't worth it anymore, to be quite frank. I can't imagine many people would want to join even for a planned hour.

In my opinion, the best chances Argo has are on MTA:SA, if you want to see people interested in joining.

Would SAMP be worth it if people joined? From my quick Google search, hosted tab prices are between 30 and 35 euro. I can spend that for 6 months, till the Mta sa server comes up.

I just need help with choosing the right one. Is this a good idea?

There is no doubt that we are going to be moving to MTA SA. In the mean time, I'm personally not against players playing on SAMP and I'm not here to tell Cutt3r how to spend his money. I'm unsure what the process is to get on hosted but if you think that would help, I don't see why not. Though Brian may have to comment on that before proceeding.

[KenAdams]

You can't expect the server to be up or anything of the sort by having a small community within the community

While I'm not 100% with you with the rest of the content, Hammer, this quote in itself is spot on.

I've proposed this in the past but I am going spit it out once more. We had to either switch states every 5-6 months or simply find another alternatives of keeping the players interested. The "small town" project, as people call it, is indeed fun, but limits the player in terms of things to do other than "RPing".

We all know SAMP as a platform is a virtual world of people wanting to gain status, being able to consistently grow financially as well as you also nicely put it, Hammer, be able to fuck around when you have nothing to do of use in-game.

In short, I still do respect the idea of Fort Carson being the center of attention for the server to bring the entire playerbase together, but it was a matter of time until Fort Carson itself bores you to death, and eventually /q or even not join the server at all in order to repeat the same routine.

Personally, I enjoyed being in Fort Carson, specially during the elections.. Fun times.. Interviewing people, candidates, blowing up SanTV office, etc.