And what has this got to do with getting servers back onto the default Quickplay pool, Matthias? It is my belief that Valve will always keep HTML MOTDs disabled for Quickplay joins...and that we need to fight the battles we can win. Hence, getting servers back onto the default Quickplay pool needs to come before your personal vendetta against advertising, sorry, but that's what it looks like. If, in the course of achieving the goal of Quickplay reform, adverts need to be discussed, then I'm sure we can discuss it. But given the current configuration of Quickplay and the intended goal, it does not.
I also note that more server ops would be inclined to engage in this conversation if they felt it wasn't going to damage thier community whilst doing so - We need thier combined input. On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek < [email protected]> wrote: > I think if a player wants to play on a community server without ads, he > should be able to get a list of servers meeting the criteria. MOTDs > actually have a lot of other uses. > At the moment if I join a random community server from within the browser, > I have to assume the worst. How can we fix this? Transparency and > moderation. > > > On 19.12.2015 01:53, Cats From Above wrote: > > Well, quite frankly, we could avoid a whole lot of bias issues if the > topic of adverts and internal server policy was ruled entirely out of > scope. This shouldn't be about telling sever ops how they should run and > fund thier servers. Adverts and Quickplay are two different issues in my > view – especially as HTML motds are disabled on Quickplay connects and will > likely remain so regardless of whatever outcomes are achieved. > > On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Rowedahelicon < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> I'm open to either idea, but I think the bottom line should that we >> strive for an outcome both preferable to us and the TF2 player base as >> well, so as long as we're doing that then we're doing good? >> >> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 7:46 PM, Matthias "InstantMuffin" Kollek < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I don't see any reason why someone needs to be a non-server op to >>> represent the interests of server ops. The idea is to pick decent >>> representatives that are server ops, and are willing to represent a >>> consensus, with the added experience and expertise they have to properly >>> recognize and understand point of views. The politics analogy isn't >>> misplaced. You don't have a member of another party representing the other. >>> Why? Conflict of interest. (How absurd I know) >>> Maybe pick one non op and 5 server ops. It's still ridiculous. >>> >>> > > > _______________________________________________ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please > visit:https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds > > > > _______________________________________________ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, > please visit: > https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds > >
_______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: https://list.valvesoftware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/hlds
