1306 replies to this topic

[DocBach]

nonnex, on 13 September 2014 - 02:33 AM, said:

This Thread is not an election just a formless unorganized call of names.

I believe it's more of a nomination phase as this idea isn't even 24 hours old.

[Tkhaw]

I don't really comment much, but I would nominate for this council:

MischiefSC

Koniving

Homeless Bill

Roland

Bishop (If he still wants)

Others that were banned though, could contribute through proxies

Also make sure that this is not a permanent position (term limits or I would call it feature limits)

As for the nomination process, possibly extend it to a week? That will give time for people to be informed and involved.

I really hope that this initiative could work...

[Kmieciu]

Koniving

Homeless Bill

Roland

wanderer

Edited by Kmieciu, 13 September 2014 - 02:44 AM.

[Asmudius Heng]

nonnex, on 13 September 2014 - 02:33 AM, said:

This Thread is not an election just a formless unorganized call of names and therefor lead to nothing just chaos.

Which is why Russ has said he will create a poll.

What this thread has shown is that as a community mostly people are pretty civil and there is a lot of respect for a few people who get mentioned time and time again without others coming in an bad mouthing them.

There are some pretty clear indications we have community thought leaders who are civil, charismatic, and smart enough that the worst people say about them is "I don't always agree with him but ..." Which is amazing because people are willing to promote those who they have probably argued with bitterly over some minutiae of balance previously.

This is the chaotic mess where half a dozen or so names are clearly ringing out and a vote well promoted by PGI will I am sure allow a decent 'election' process more formal than this.

We are then left with another pool of people who were well respected enough to be included who can easily be some other sort of review group if it gets that complex.

Without some sort of official thing of course it is chaos but I am actually pleased at most of the comments because the few trolls have been ignored mostly.

[o0cipher0o]

My votes go for:

-Homeless bill;

-konivig.

[nonnex]

true. ok ok

It was just a call to a more organized path, maybe we need a google docs sheet (OP?) to collect the things here or something, thats what I have meant.

Edited by nonnex, 13 September 2014 - 02:44 AM.

[Khan Warlock Kell]

Id like to raise a couple of points. First one is about the reps themselves

1) while we do need people with strong views, what we don't need are people with antagonistic relationships with PGI, that would cloud the relationship before it even gets of the ground. A forthright view and the ability to explain their view point in a clear and concise manner, without resorting to some of the truly nasty personal attacks that have occurred in the past, Anybody who has had an account banned either here, rededit, twitter or other social media site related to attacks on the Devs should be barred from standing,

2) I would suggest a council of 7 would be a good number. enough to have a decent discussion on suggestions raised but not so many that it becomes unwieldy. I also think it's unwise to select people with a personal agenda or because they favour a particular mech weight class. People should be selected who have the genuine interests of the game as a whole uppermost in any thought process.

Warlock

[DocBach]

nonnex, on 13 September 2014 - 02:43 AM, said:

true. ok ok

It was just a call to a more organized path, maybe we need a google docs sheet (OP?) to collect the things here or something, thats what I have meant.

Someone has started a google doc with names, I don't remember off the top of my head and I'm on an iphone so it's a pain to search... But one has been posted previously in this thread.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

Khan Warlock Kell, on 13 September 2014 - 02:44 AM, said:

Id like to raise a couple of points. First one is about the reps themselves

1) while we do need people with strong views, what we don't need are people with antagonistic relationships with PGI, that would cloud the relationship before it even gets of the ground. A forthright view and the ability to explain their view point in a clear and concise manner, without resorting to some of the truly nasty personal attacks that have occurred in the past, Anybody who has had an account banned either here, rededit, twitter or other social media site related to attacks on the Devs should be barred from standing,

That is not necessarily true. you don't want a council full of yes men as that will solve nothing, you do however want people with a backbone that are prepared to argue (intelligently) their point.
The council would be pointless if they just roll over and play dead.

Serious offenders (those who have wished harm on devs) sure i can get behind that. But some folk have had infractions or banned because they disagree and don't put it in an eloquent way (probably not suitable on mass but a single character of that nature wouldn't be a terrible thing\)

Edited by DV McKenna, 13 September 2014 - 02:50 AM.

[Oderint dum Metuant]

DocBach, on 13 September 2014 - 02:47 AM, said:

Someone has started a google doc with names, I don't remember off the top of my head and I'm on an iphone so it's a pain to search... But one has been posted previously in this thread.

This one?

https://docs.google....dit?usp=sharing

[Asmudius Heng]

To be honest, the people who are being mentioned most of the time who are not banned seem to be highly critical of PGI but have mostly been very civil about it without ever backing down from speaking thier mind.

That is exactly the sort of people we need.

As much as I respect a few on that list the ones that are banned would probably not play well together at this point.

And yes, someone did start a list, I would hope for the sake of no duplication they can finish it tomorrow with a list of names that have been mentioned a few times ... None of these one mention losers

[nonnex]

DV McKenna, on 13 September 2014 - 02:52 AM, said:

This one?

https://docs.google....dit?usp=sharing

This is a good approach, should be in the Original Post, maintained, discussed and so on.

@Garandos: ?

Edited by nonnex, 13 September 2014 - 03:05 AM.

[Kin3ticX]

voting for

Homeless Bill - pug star extraordinaire

Heimdelight - Competitive perspective

Jman5 - Expert of Hunchbacks 'n things

[Khan Warlock Kell]

While I agree we don't need PGI yes men on the council. They need to be strong enough to get their point across in a clear concise friendly manner, their relationship with PGI is actually secondary to their relationship with the community as a whole is far more important. I am not going to name any names but some of the candidates mentioned so far do have a tendency to be quite vitriolic with people who don't agree with their point of view. it's normal to argue and disagree but people who have got themselves banned for an inability to remain civil are not the type of people I want to represent me,

[KHETTI]

As long as there's some sort of cross section of the player base, made up by level headed, knowledgeable and non-agenda driven persons, who's goal is for the betterment of ALL players, they get my vote whoever they may be.

[Vimeous]

Nice one PGI, you drop IGP and get us instead.
Something akin to cutting off the ball and chain then strapping on an anchor, from a battleship, with docking clamps and a small paw waving PuG giving you the yadidnawanna look.

[Garandos]

DocBach, on 13 September 2014 - 02:34 AM, said:

I believe it's more of a nomination phase as this idea isn't even 24 hours old.

Exactly, its JUST about nominating and getting a rough feeling for who would be of interest, a Poll will be set up, after we have a solid list of names.

We COULD put up a Poll with *every* user ever registered here, which would be useless, because the list would be infinite long.

So, if we can boil the Poll options down to a working number of players, we can set up the poll and then act based on the results

nonnex, on 13 September 2014 - 03:00 AM, said:

This is a good approach, should be in the Original Post, maintained, discussed and so on.

@Garandos: ?

I am somewhat hesitant to use it for number collecting as of now, because we allready have all sorts of crosslinking to do, but if you think its better, i take the time and put the numbers in there, and republish it as a wip.

And just to mention it, i think it IS a really good work in that list, especially because its sorted and very well done with the color code, just give me some time RL and stuff, and im trying to kill a dev maybe ^^

Edited by Garandos, 13 September 2014 - 04:15 AM.

[Prezimonto]

DV McKenna, on 13 September 2014 - 02:52 AM, said:

This one?

https://docs.google....dit?usp=sharing

I added a column for each person to add if they accept or reject the nomination. Each player should go in and note if they do or don't actually want the job. That might help weed out names at least a little bit.

As an example I added a "No" to Bishop's name since he's already said he does not want to be a committee member.

Edited by Prezimonto, 13 September 2014 - 05:00 AM.

[Prezimonto]

Asmudius Heng, on 13 September 2014 - 02:53 AM, said:

To be honest, the people who are being mentioned most of the time who are not banned seem to be highly critical of PGI but have mostly been very civil about it without ever backing down from speaking thier mind.

That is exactly the sort of people we need.

As much as I respect a few on that list the ones that are banned would probably not play well together at this point.

And yes, someone did start a list, I would hope for the sake of no duplication they can finish it tomorrow with a list of names that have been mentioned a few times ... None of these one mention losers

I respect Sandpit enough to think if he was reinstated on the forums that he'd honestly try to do a good job if given one by the community. I don't know if that will happen though.

Edited by Prezimonto, 13 September 2014 - 05:09 AM.

[Kiiyor]

My contribution to the whole thing isn't an argument about the ECM system, but a suggestion for measuring the acceptance of our proposed redesign:



I first noticed this in Star Conflict. While the poll questions were very generic, for some reason it set me in a position of good faith with the development team. It was like they were breaking the fourth wall, and because the system wasn't invasive, I didn't resent it.

Here in MWO, if the devs communicated the ongoing results of the poll as a percentage, we could at lease see what the unwashed masses think of any final concept. My concern is that those in control of this process will be representing the established players, and that the voice of those unwilling to brave the often hostile wastelands of our forums might be drowned out. I'm not saying that those elected would do this, but that they should also consider the effect of any proposal as though they were a casual player sitting in the cockpit of a (C) mech.

Also, to our intrepid devs, though I understand this will likely be more work for an already overworked team, if you are serious about player feedback in the future, this could be a useful tool for measuring majority opinion, and strengthening the impression that you value player feedback.