Electing A Player "council" Of Sorts
#41
Posted 12 September 2014 - 12:49 PM
#42
Posted 12 September 2014 - 12:49 PM
lockwoodx, on 12 September 2014 - 12:41 PM, said:
Bishop would be a terrible candidate tho due to his agenda driven posts, quick to personally attack those that disagree with him, and massive ego.
I disagree with him a lot. He does speak reasonably well for a lot of people though. I disagree with most the highly competitive groups a lot - I still think they need a strong voice because they're a big piece of the community. IMO the best way to approach this is a 'up-votes only' take on candidates; you talk about the people you like not the people you hate. No negative press approaches or it'll all go toxic.
It's cool you don't like Bishop. You don't need to and probably shouldn't like all 9. That would mean it wasn't a good representation of peoples interests. If we all say 'I like this guy, hate this guy' the conversation will quickly turn to who hates who as negative press effectively sells better than positive. We don't want that, it's toxic.
Up votes (as in who you want) only IMO.
We should really codify how we're going to do this.
Bhael Fire, on 12 September 2014 - 12:43 PM, said:
There are a lot of great ideas floating around out there and no reason to preclude any of them just because they didn't come from the prom king/queens.
In a scenario like this, ALL members of this forum should be considered part the "council" if they post and contribute here on a regular basis.
Just my 2 c-bills.
The point of the council is just the be the people who talk to PGI for us. It's all the community, everyone has an equal voice and say, just that 10,000 people can't convey a single idea to PGI. We create and assemble our decision as a community, we give it to the council who turns it into a presentation, we all look at it and agree 80% that's what we want, they take it to PGI.
The idea being that instead of 1,000 people all trying convey their opinion on something they've got a guy on the council they put their opinions to who, in turn, condenses it to a single post.
It's about efficiency, not exclusion.
#43
Posted 12 September 2014 - 12:49 PM
Garandos, on 12 September 2014 - 11:43 AM, said:
After, the guys and gals we decide on, should organise a different thread, to discuss the Topic of ECM in itself.
This is, just to be seen as suggestion thought
i would think, 5 people would be a good start for a "council team"
My personal choice for nominating people would be:
- IraqiWalker, reason, i see him posting a lot, he has solid ideas and a broad knowledge about the game
-Konivig, for about the same reason
and as a third nominee, i would suggest Egomane, as he is in touch with the Devs anyway in one way or another, as he is a mod.
I would say, we do our nominations over the weekend, and on Monday, we simply count who got the most voices.
Better ideas? Lets her them
One person? No. A council of game elders. I suggest we form a group of unit leaders who will gather data from their units as well as a few people willing to collate data from the lone wolves and have this group come to a consensus and present a proposal to PGI.
Its the most democratic way.
#44
Posted 12 September 2014 - 12:50 PM
Adiuvo, on 12 September 2014 - 11:55 AM, said:
What this can't turn into is a popularity contest if actual, substantial changes have any hope of being implemented.
These are both very important points. Popular forumites aren't necessarily good at balance and the solution has to work for comps and casuals.
#45
Posted 12 September 2014 - 12:50 PM
#46
Posted 12 September 2014 - 12:51 PM
Koniving
Docbach
Homeless Bill
Aduivo
Bishop Steiner
(not necessarily in order of priority)
#47
Posted 12 September 2014 - 12:51 PM
MischiefSC, on 12 September 2014 - 12:49 PM, said:
I disagree with him a lot. He does speak reasonably well for a lot of people though. I disagree with most the highly competitive groups a lot - I still think they need a strong voice because they're a big piece of the community. IMO the best way to approach this is a 'up-votes only' take on candidates; you talk about the people you like not the people you hate. No negative press approaches or it'll all go toxic.
It's cool you don't like Bishop. You don't need to and probably shouldn't like all 9. That would mean it wasn't a good representation of peoples interests. If we all say 'I like this guy, hate this guy' the conversation will quickly turn to who hates who as negative press effectively sells better than positive. We don't want that, it's toxic.
Never said I disliked him. I base my opinion on his posting habits and reactions to posts he doesn't agree with. He's not a level headed mediator I'd want having influence on a council that impacts the game. A self admitted "jaded white knight". I listed the names of those I have much more respect for in that department.
Edited by lockwoodx, 12 September 2014 - 12:53 PM.
#48
Posted 12 September 2014 - 12:52 PM
Homeless Bill
Bishop Steiner
Adiuvo
Sturm Wealth
Roland
Livewyr
JagerXII
#49
Posted 12 September 2014 - 12:53 PM
Currently searching....don't suppose anyone has saved links to such a disscussion?
#50
Posted 12 September 2014 - 12:53 PM
Agelmar, on 12 September 2014 - 12:48 PM, said:
Then they get banned again. A big mistake we can make here though is to go through all this work and create something viewed as an echo chamber. You need to make room for dissent, so long as it's done respectfully. There are a few banned people who are as a given rule intelligent, thoughtful and productive folks with a lot to add - just sometimes (with a bit too much to drink most likely) they venture into territory inappropriate for this forum. Do that too often and it's the ban hammer.
The goal though is to rope people in from as wide a group as possible. One guy helping share the voice of the far-flung diaspora from MW:O isn't bad, so long as it's intelligent and productive. Hence why I say Roadbeer and/or Sandpit would be awesome for that. Vassago is a laugh riot and good people but to put him at a table with Bishop, Roland and several others... someone would get shanked.
If we're going to do this though (and I've been vocal about saying 'eff Reddit and everyone who got banned and wants special treatment') we still need to give them a voice. This is a kick-ass opportunity and we need to grab it by its haunches and hump it into submission.
#51
Posted 12 September 2014 - 12:55 PM
This may have been the point of Russ offering this... making it blatantly obvious to everyone how hard it is to get anything done amidst an ocean of voices.
FWIW, I wholly support the idea. Not sure how much my extremely casual and mediocre play ability opinion is worth, but...
Yes, the casual and comp crowds must both be represented.
Yes, the reddit crowd should have a reasonable voice. I haven't been around long enough to know who most of them are, but Sandpit always seemed pretty reasonable to me.
Yes, a pilot who specializes in lights should absolutely be involved. Adiuvo seems alright, despite being in HoL.
#52
Posted 12 September 2014 - 12:56 PM
Agelmar, on 12 September 2014 - 12:48 PM, said:
This, a thousand times over. All a council position will do for someone who can't articulate their thoughts in a proper manner will do is give them a pulpit to be a grade A tool for whatever imaginary, perceived transgressions they find themselves in.
The absolute minimum requirement for a council position is never been banned.
#53
Posted 12 September 2014 - 12:57 PM
We tally it in 7 days and make a poll out of, say, the top 20.
I get the desire to make it 'unit leaders' and such but unit leaders can just be the guy who runs the teamspeak; sometimes a unit isn't run by their most reasonable member, etc.
If a unit wants their leader they should all vote for him.
Does this sound good to folks?
#54
Posted 12 September 2014 - 12:57 PM
Edited by Pendraco, 12 September 2014 - 12:58 PM.
#55
Posted 12 September 2014 - 12:57 PM
This is going to be fantastic.
#56
Posted 12 September 2014 - 01:00 PM
People start to talk on behalf of the community what they really mean is their friends/unit which often means views/opinions/misconceptions become fostered.
I rather see polls send out to active players (either all or just a selection across the elo bands); multiple choice with a comment section on popular forums topics.
#57
Posted 12 September 2014 - 01:01 PM
#58
Posted 12 September 2014 - 01:02 PM
#59
Posted 12 September 2014 - 01:02 PM
SilentWolff, on 12 September 2014 - 12:45 PM, said:
Having an elected council makes it technically a republic. Basically strips it down to an elitist community where only a few select ideas get voted on instead of the full spectrum.
A true democracy would be allowing each player to make suggestions and have it voted on. Once you introduce a political structure you introduce political games...and with it a blanket system where only a prominent few get their ideas heard.
There's nothing wrong with our current system of allowing each player start a poll for their ideas and having the entire community vote on it. That is true democracy.
#60
Posted 12 September 2014 - 01:03 PM
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users