1306 replies to this topic

[MischiefSC]

Heffay, on 12 September 2014 - 12:56 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.

I agree in concept but again, remember, this council isn't about making their own decisions but in presenting a unified voice for a bloc of players in an open forum. Are we saying dissenters from prior MW:O issues are not allowed?

I've been very vocal about how few ***** I have to give for people who got themselves banned and go rampaging in every thread they can get into with alt accounts and such.

That doesn't mean that if their opinion can not be channeled through a respectful, reasonable and rational voice it doesn't need to be heard. If it can't be, then sure. Kick them back out the door. Are we really saying 'EFF ALL OF YOU, THIS IS OUR HOUSE NOW!'

It can potentially skew perception of such a council as a whole. The point of a council isn't to have your best and brightest making your decisions; it's to have select voices condense the opinions of the public into a unified whole to be considered, in turn, by the body public before making a final decision. To do that though it needs to be seen as legitimately representing the body public as a whole.

I'm cool either way but I still think the inclusion of a voice from the banished fringe, if it's respectful and obeys the same forum rules we all do and has a useful opinion to make, would strengthen the position of the whole concept and do immeasurable good for the feelings of the entire community.

[Bishop Steiner]

MischiefSC, on 12 September 2014 - 12:53 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.

I don't have much to say, and can't speak for all those banned. I can say I used to have Roadbeer and Sandpit on my Twitter Feed.

Neither of those are going to get themselves unbanned anytime soon, nor is most of what they say on twitter about MWO, for the last several months, fit for reprinting.

Sorry, but I have to agree, that bringing those who were banned back in, then given a bully pulpit, is just asking to tear the place down again.

Beyond that, I think most of you have pretty good ideas. Has to be big enough that power blocks ar ento easily formed, Epeen is mitigated, but also represent all the facets of the Playerbase, equally. But small enough to be efficient. 7-9 would work well.

[RussianWolf]

I highly recommend people think about the guy that, while they disagree with them, they are reasoned in their arguments.

These are the people that you want, not just your best proponents.

[Heffay]

Bhael Fire, on 12 September 2014 - 01:02 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.

I'm fine with that. For the record, my support can be bought. Cheaply.

[MischiefSC]

I vote for DocBach then. Been rock solid on MW:O since it the mechs were in digital diapers.

[Heffay]

MischiefSC, on 12 September 2014 - 01:03 PM, said:

I agree in concept but again, remember, this council isn't about making their own decisions but in presenting a unified voice for a bloc of players in an open forum. Are we saying dissenters from prior MW:O issues are not allowed?

Dissenters are allowed. Dissenters who can't put on their big boy pants can take a hike.

[Apnu]

MischiefSC, on 12 September 2014 - 12:57 PM, said:

Okay. Let's start making more refined progress. What we need is a heavily moderated thread where people just say who they vote for. We run it for a week. Anything other than a list of names (call it a cutoff of 10) gets removed from the post.

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?

Have any of the people nominated here confirmed if they are willing to do this?

Also, there should be a good section of unit leaders.

[Tastian]

If dogs ruled the world, I hope they don't choose leaders based on size alone. Because I'm sure there are some chihuahaus with some really great ideas.

I think you get the idea. Group council should not be limited to those who have the most posts, founders, or those with the largest goon backing.

That being said, I'd nominate Koniving

[stjobe]

Votanin FleshRender, on 12 September 2014 - 12:55 PM, said:

If the community can't even agree how many members the "council" should be... bodes ill for getting any results.

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.

The problem Russ faces is that he's doing one-offs all the time; things like these are a process that needs to take some time and go a few rounds back-and-forth.

I'm sure that we can come to an agreement on a number for how many should be on the council if we just hash it out over a few days or so - just like I'm sure we can offer a good improvement for ECM implementation in a month or two.

[MischiefSC]

Bishop Steiner, on 12 September 2014 - 01:03 PM, said:

I don't have much to say, and can't speak for all those banned. I can say I used to have Roadbeer and Sandpit on my Twitter Feed.

Neither of those are going to get themselves unbanned anytime soon, nor is most of what they say on twitter about MWO, for the last several months, fit for reprinting.

Sorry, but I have to agree, that bringing those who were banned back in, then given a bully pulpit, is just asking to tear the place down again.

Beyond that, I think most of you have pretty good ideas. Has to be big enough that power blocks ar ento easily formed, Epeen is mitigated, but also represent all the facets of the Playerbase, equally. But small enough to be efficient. 7-9 would work well.

Let me ask you this though - I have been reading what those two have been saying lately and they're pissed and bitter.

However, do you really think either would blow a chance to come back and actually have a useful voice in getting something done and changed? That's what they both flipped out over the most. They had ideas, saw and shilled for new ideas, and felt like it was ignored.

I respect both of them enough to believe that if given a chance to put on a respectable suit, shower and shave for public appearance they could represent people who've left MW:O but would love to come back and they could do it respectably and sensibly.

If neither is willing or up to that, well fine. I get that. If this thing doesn't include the voice of the dissenting segment of the games population though we're throwing away a hell of an opportunity.

[StalaggtIKE]

I want to nominate Rasc4l -- He wrote up a very well laid out plan for the 4 core pillars of MWO, with a focus on Information Warfare and Role Warfare. (http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__3417099)

I also second Koniving.

Edit: A few more Homeless Bill, DocBach and JagerXII, Bishop Steiner

And of course, Livewyr, the guy that got the ball rolling.

Edited by StalaggtIKE, 12 September 2014 - 01:14 PM.

[MischiefSC]

Apnu, on 12 September 2014 - 01:04 PM, said:

Have any of the people nominated here confirmed if they are willing to do this?

Also, there should be a good section of unit leaders.

Idea is you take the nominations FIRST.

Of those nominations you have a ballot of the folks willing to commit to it.

This lets everyone put forward who they want to lead. This, in turn, prompts those would-be leaders to have to evaluate who they'd be speaking on behalf of and if that's what they want to do.

[Heffay]

Here are another set of restrictions that we should apply to potential members of the Player Council, in order to ensure we only have the highest quality people participating.

1) Nobody under 25. They already have ninja assassin gaming twitch skills. Let them learn some patience before participating in a leadership position.
2) Never been banned. If you can't express dissatisfaction like an adult, see rule 1.
3) College graduate. Prove that you have enough critical thinking skills and dedication to get through a higher education program. Liberal Arts degrees will be taken on a case by case basis.
4) Married at least 5 years with no divorces. If you can't handle a spouse, you will never be able to handle the MWO player base.

That's all I have for now. Will add more if I think of any other good restrictions.

[Khobai]

Quote

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.

Agreed. Its not like putting a poll up on the forums for all players to participate in is a difficult thing to do.

We dont need a council to decide the direction the game should go in. We need a council to sort out the good ideas from the bad ideas and present them to PGI so they can put up a poll for the community to vote on.

[MischiefSC]

Pendraco, on 12 September 2014 - 12:57 PM, said:

I nominate MischiefSC as Precentor Martial in command of said counsil.........just to keep things civil.

Put them all in shocking collars. 'Sorry, your turn to speak is up.' BBBZZZZTTTTTT!!!. 'If someone will help clean up the drool and get his jaw unlocked.... okay, next representative, your turn. You have 60 seconds *precisely*.'

[Kirkland Langue]

Koniving has my vote.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Rasc4l and StJobe are good too.

Along with HomelessBill, Koniving, DocBach, Saxie and I'd even say Livewyr and throw in a few comp guys. Would really be on to something.

[Apnu]

Khobai, on 12 September 2014 - 01:10 PM, said:

Agreed. Its not like putting a poll up on the forums for all players to participate in is a difficult thing to do.

We dont need a council to decide the direction the game should go in. We need a council to sort out the good ideas from the bad ideas and present them to PGI so they can put up a poll for the community to vote on.

If there's another way. Perhaps we set up a poll some with a proposal (ECM for example) and encourage the community to vote up/down the proposal.

Going further we could have several proposals and have the community vote the validity of the proposals and ranking them in order of importance.

[MischiefSC]

Heffay, on 12 September 2014 - 01:09 PM, said:

Here are another set of restrictions that we should apply to potential members of the Player Council, in order to ensure we only have the highest quality people participating.

1) Nobody under 25. They already have ninja assassin gaming twitch skills. Let them learn some patience before participating in a leadership position.
2) Never been banned. If you can't express dissatisfaction like an adult, see rule 1.
3) College graduate. Prove that you have enough critical thinking skills and dedication to get through a higher education program. Liberal Arts degrees will be taken on a case by case basis.
4) Married at least 5 years with no divorces. If you can't handle a spouse, you will never be able to handle the MWO player base.

That's all I have for now. Will add more if I think of any other good restrictions.

Dude... this is a gamers forum. We're not picking people to convey our respects to the Pope. I get that a lot of this is tongue-in-cheek but we can joke about it later. For now let's get the momentum moving in the right direction.


So are we cool with the idea of a moderated nomination thread at least? We run it for ~7 days, anything that isn't someones name of who you're voting for (not against) gets removed? If so I'll go beg a mod for help with it and we can get it started.

That will at least give us a viable list of names to start with. Then we can move on to narrowing that into a council and of what size and then the election process.

While we're doing all of this we'll have concurrent threads chewing on the ECM issue as a whole so that by the time we've got a council in place we'll have some solid stuff for them to handle.

Does that work? That sound viable?

[Cmdr Rad]

Andersbot