55 replies to this topic

[Garandos]

Well, what i would be curious about,

what would be the oppinion of you guys on this?

Do you think, that, in case, a banned player would end up in the council/Task force,
he should get a second chance?

Do you think those people should be out of the question for such a "job" within the comunity?

I dont know the stance of Russ and PGI on this, but i think, if we got the chance, to select a few, so the communication can be funneled throught them and thus streamlined, we should have the option to select people which are not in the "best standing" with PGI.

Why do i think this?

Because people did not get banned because of Player choice.

But i guess, having a broader collection of oppinions, would be really helpfull, as this is of concern for all of us!

So, oppinions?

(i try to get a simple poll in this, dont know if it works out)

[Artgathan]

Garandos, on 13 September 2014 - 04:19 AM, said:

Why do i think this?

Because people did not get banned because of Player choice.

They most certainly did get banned because of player choice. They chose to act inappropriately and were punished for it.

No, banned players should not be on the council. PGI stated they wanted a coherent, respectful message from whatever council is formed. Banned players have demonstrated that they are not capable of this.

[El Bandito]

We got enough respectable and experienced players to form a council so there is no real need to choose from those who have been banned.

Edited by El Bandito, 13 September 2014 - 04:45 AM.

[Onmyoudo]

I thought Chronojam had been banned but was still a worthwhile candidate, but according to the google doc he's in "good standing" so maybe not. Otherwise I agree with Bandito.

[Felbombling]

I guess it depends on what they were banned for. I'm pretty sure I saw one of the players being nominated for the Player Council openly calling the NGNG guys and the people they were grouped with a bunch of [lit cigarettes] on the Twitch stream yesterday. How helpful will that person be, despite their popularity, if elected to the council?

[FDJustin]

Shrug? PGI's choice if they unban them, communities choice if we want them to be part of the... Representatives, or think tank, or whatever. Simple enough.

[Joseph Mallan]

If the player wasn't banned for colorful metaphors I don't see a reason they should not be elegable. Specially if they were banned during the last wave.

[Revorn]

If the Player has Posts written, witch proving a good understanding in Game mechanics and therefore can contribute constructively to the Process. Well maybe, its up to PGI if they want to work with them.

Edited by Revorn, 13 September 2014 - 07:17 AM.

[TopDawg]

While in game conduct can be an example/indicator of how they might act in a more structured/'professional' matter, it doesn't necessarily have to be. If PGI is truly adamant about trying to 'bridge the gap' or 'reset' relations, then unbanning isn't a bad idea (and really a rather simple thing to do on their end). If said people are too stupid/toxic to make use of a second chance/opportunity, then just ban them again and sleep well knowing the right choice was made the first time.

As for who should be on the council or task force (there's a huge difference in my mind), the players can choose; and in my opinion the more views (up to a point) the better, all the way round. The more people you have the more it dilutes the power of any one member. Which is helpful for a council trying to represent a community at large. For a task force, well, it's much more limited in scope and is not likely to represent the community as a whole (and maybe it doesn't have to, but trusting game design to a small few, as already demonstrated by the devs, is bound to have mixed results - unless it's a highly competent few, but even then the current restraints placed on the endeavor is rather limiting anyway).

Regardless, I put some of those thoughts here already. And while I may come off harsh to the devs in this particular post, it is not my intent. There is nothing wrong (well, in most cases) with making a mistake, learning from it, and then correcting it for the future. The problem is usually in acknowledging it in the first place.

[Joseph Mallan]

Revorn, on 13 September 2014 - 07:16 AM, said:

If the Player has Posts written, witch proving a good understanding in Game mechanics and therefore can contribute constructively to the Process. Well maybe, its up to PGI if they want to work with them.

Sometimes it's better for brainstorming for divergent ideas to be brought to the table. Or, if everyone is thinking the same thing, they all aren't thinking!

[TopDawg]

Joseph Mallan, on 13 September 2014 - 07:22 AM, said:

Sometimes it's better for brainstorming for divergent ideas to be brought to the table. Or, if everyone is thinking the same thing, they all aren't thinking!

For sure. Groupthink and all that.

[Lanessar]

As long as death threats or some really ******** things weren't involved, I honestly feel there should be a general amnesty.

No, seriously, hear me out on this one.

I wasn't banned, but I certainly had to walk away a few times seeing some of the responses from before from the developers. Thankfully, I managed to keep a level head and not lash out, but it was pretty close a couple of times.

It would be a great follow-through of the olive branch to unban those players. Passion is what we need with the community, and as long as they'll put in creative effort to add to it.

Many of them are (cautiously) seeing some light on the horizon now, and want to work with the developers to address things in the game.

It's just my two cents. I know there are probably a load of people who are rabidly against this, but honestly, I can see why the frustration built up to the point of ad hominem attacks and general "go @#@ yourself, PGI" at certain points.

Also, to be utterly honest, some of these players have some very intelligent points to say (when not irate). Not listening would be (in my opinion) a real loss to this process. And frankly, a loss to what the community wants to accomplish.

[Revorn]

Joseph Mallan, on 13 September 2014 - 07:22 AM, said:

Sometimes it's better for brainstorming for divergent ideas to be brought to the table. Or, if everyone is thinking the same thing, they all aren't thinking!

I agree with you completely, divergent Ideas on the Table are the Key for creative Development. sry for not making this clear in my Post, so its miss-understandable.

[o0Marduk0o]

It is a bad idea. Those people have shown their inability to discuss topics on an acceptable level. They have no respect and got banned for good reason.

[Mercules]

o0Marduk0o, on 13 September 2014 - 07:32 AM, said:

It is a bad idea. Those people have shown their inability to discuss topics on an acceptable level. They have no respect and got banned for good reason.

Some of them had respect for several years and were staunch defenders of PGI the majority of the time. Two I can think of specifically were very often the, "Guys, I think you need to give them a chance." over and over again. It's my opinion they got frustrated and did something rash and would be doubly contrite and cautious with a second chance.

[CheebaMech]

If this is to be truly open and fair, I would think that SOME of the banned players would end up being elected. Many got banned for raising a dissenting opinion from PGI's, let's face that fact. Yes, there are some that were rabid trolls, but also quite a few that had expressed intelligent and reasonable doubts/questions and it's important that those guys get a voice.

edit: hey, my 100th post! I must finally be committed.

Edited by CheebaMech, 13 September 2014 - 07:47 AM.

[Xenon Codex]

No, currently banned people should not be eligible. If they can petition PGI to un-ban them, then yes I fully support their nominations (and might even vote for them if I don't find anything too vulgar on their social feeds). I believe in 2nd chances, and do hope PGI eventually reinstates them if they feel time has been served. But this is PGI's game and if they will not un-ban them then that's that.

[PappySmurf]

Here is my answer to the OP

First players councils have always been 99% bad with Counsel players having the ability to push there agendas and forgetting the agendas of the players there representing.

Second what your seeing in these Player Counsel topics about who should become a counsel member is the same people being nominated and then they log on to the forums on there alt accounts posting votes for themselves its quite obvious and a joke also this same group of nominees was behind all the GOON commotion on the forums a year back.

So no I would not say MWO should have a player counsel instead have PGI staff make topics and polls and make sure there honest and not the same forum users and there alts voting multiple times.

I vote NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! player counsels in MWO period.

Edited by PappySmurf, 13 September 2014 - 07:52 AM.

[Jack Avery]

I guess I'm not even sure what this player council is that's being mentioned, but if you have failed so miserably in your conduct, whether in-game or on the forums, then no, you absolutely do not deserve to be on a player council. If you are going to act in any sort of official capacity as a voice of the players, you need to act like it.

As for divergent opinions? You can disagree and offer a different viewpoint and still follow the Code of Conduct. People really need to start learning how to do that.

[CheebaMech]

[color=#959595]"First players councils have always been 99% bad with Counsel players having the ability to push there agendas and forgetting the agendas of the players there representing."[/color]

If this is occurring, then the system of governance is set up incorrectly. Have a higher turnover rate of the elected council members. For example: council slots limited to 90 days, then a new election, and the same candidates cannot run consecutively.