[Jammin]

I reserve the right to update this as I, too, do not want to write a wall of text all at once.

1. Admins: Unless the present committee system is reworked, as of now we should have at least one more admin on the team. I can give my support to 3 TTT moderators - however one of them is not at present interested in the role. For something this serious, I'm going to name-drop. As such, I feel that @Battons and @bryanbrr would make for good TTT admins. I believe adding both individuals to the admin team would be a good change for the TTT server. However, in lieu of adding more admins (or even if more admins are added). I feel a reworked committee structure would be good, especially for reasons I am going to type in point 3. Im working on some ideas as to what this will look like, and will probably post for community feedback at some point. (I think a stronger committee system done correctly will address concerns that made @dong leave, still making sure that the important issues get final approval from the admin team - especially for high-profile unban requests and rule changes. But situations like the rice cooker unban request currently open could be resolved in a day).
Also please do not bring my name as potential admin candidates at this time, as I do not meet the qualifications. As flattered as I am by several of you brinigng my name up, I've been a moderator for roughly 17.4 hours. Realistic conversations regarding the next admin will not involve me as a candidate.

As far as Co-Owner goes - I don't mind not having one, as I understand why Dink is not comfortable giving out access. However - we need more activity from Dink if this is going to be the case. I'd like to see a committment to be available at a regular/standard frequency for updates - say once every week for role updates, and once every 3 weeks for server updates?
We are going 2 whole months after christmas with christmas maps still in the server - that is frankly a bit embarassing. We didn't get christmas crates this year, because the update never took place. I don't mind having everything done by Dink, but we need something better than what we have now.
Perhaps, a Co-Owner could be given server privledges, but should run all changes made by Dink BEFORE making the changes? That could be a good potential compromise - that way Dink still has full control over the server, but the Co-Owner could implement the changes once Dink gives the OK. I feel Dink has known Nicol long enough, and could trust Nicol with that responsibility, while having the assurance that Nicol would not abuse the privledge as others of yesteryear have. Obviously, Dink is very busy with IRL stuff, as we all are in life. We are all, after all human.
I feel delegating the actual change implementation to Nicol, with Dink still having full approval of every single change, would be a very reasonable compromise. And if there are concerns about Nicol someday going rogue and deleting critical files? Have backups of the server files in some form of git repository. This would ensure the server could simply be reverted back to a point in time when it all worked.

2. Bad staff: I feel that the main issues regarding inconstency revolve around vagueness within the ruleset that we have now. I think an update of the rules (for example, as we are currently discussing regarding the Teaming rule) would help resolve some of these inconsistencies.
Example: One of the things that makes me go crazy is the fact that we don't have a list of map-specific reasons to KOS. I know we don't want to clog the MOTD, but this could be cleaned easily by having one line: "Carrying any map-specific item, or performing any map-specific action, that can damage, trap, or harm players." - and have this line hyperlinked to another forum thread which has every single map-specific reasons to KOS on it
Another example: Micspam. Lets set a better standard for it than banning all of it, because that isn't going to be enforced by any reasonable staff. Im not going to issue an awarn for Zekken playing the bonk noise twice in dead chat. This one is tougher to define, as micspam does ruin the experience for several players.
As far as actually bad staff who should be demoted goes, I cannot think of any at the moment who come to mind. If staff are abusing their powers or not handling reports, not doing their job, etc, properly, bring it to a higher-ranked staff member's attention, to Nicol's attention, or file an abuse report. I am struggling to see the perspective of other players here, and would like more context, so I will keep my comments there for now.

Training: yes. we need to up the training regiment we have, especially for former staff coming back to active.

Quick note on inactivity, I like @Gabe's plan: 10 hours of consistent in-game time every 2 weeks == no vote on committees. That's an easy 10-minute check via gametracker. i'd be happy to volunteer to track that myself.

Ah, simping. Its interesting how staff tend to always mute players who harass women, isn't it? here's the thing - it seems like femal players tend to be the target of harassment more than male players. To my perspective, its not the staff who are simping, but the random guests who get riled up every time they hear a female speak. For some reason, random guests simp in a negative fashion, targeting their harassment on female players more often than male players. So do staff mute guests for harassing female players more? Yes - because female players are harassed more often.
As for a solution? I don't know. I don't really have one. Sorry. If someone is being harassed, i'm going to take action.
I do feel some players do fall under this "simp" issue (im not naming any names here), but I feel the community feels it is more of an issue because staff always mute players harassing female players. I just want to issue the reminder - the majority of harassment is directed at female players, thusely the majority of muted harassment is in defense of female players.
I don't feel qualified to say more than this. I don't feel that I fall under the "simp" category (beyond my discord role), but if someone does think I do, I encourage you to DM me details so I can better understand the issue.

3. Ignoring the community
This is one of the more concerning issues to me.
I like the idea of adding community members who have achieved the rank of regular to committees. I think this should be done by having that regular apply in some facet (maybe DM a staff member? doesn't have to be a forum thing) and have the committee vote to add the player or not. I think having regular players having feedback on rule changes, on how testing is going, on development, etc. is vital. I'm not convinced it needs to be a rotating group, as Nicky suggested. Reasonable players added to a committee will not alter its performance. However, some committees need to be held to high standards in terms of which players to add.

How can we improve things? I really like @jax's idea of adding server sprays via some kind of add-on (choosing pre-determined sprays). I feel it was immediately shot down, stomped a mud hole, stone-cold-steve stunner style. While for reasons discussed there the default spray option is asking for trouble, having pre-selected sprays, similar to discord emojis, is a reasonable system. I want to look into that myself to see how this would be possible.

4. What's next?
Where do we go from here? How do we prevent this discussion becoming just another quarterly cycle?
The biggest topic here is leadership, right? take ownership of your idea. You don't need rank role or privledges to do that. Im going to do my part - I have some ideas regarding committees - all ideas that work within the boundaries of power that Admins have now in TTT, that I think would help the staff team run more efficinetly, while allowing for more community feedback.
Maybe someone could look into a good plug-in for pre-selected sprays?
Maybe someone could make some cool images for sprays that are SFW?
Maybe someone should make a draft of a new teaming rule, and ask for the community to +/-1 it? Right now we are posting opinions, but we need someone to actually write up a draft of it.