55 replies to this topic

[Bishop Steiner]

Artgathan, on 13 September 2014 - 04:38 AM, said:

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.

Got to agree with Artgathan on this.

The individuals in question, despite the reddit rage and protests, were banned for very good reasons, after MULTIPLE warnings to cease and desist toxic behaviour and outright attempts to sabotage MWO, PGI and this Community. (PGI has done a good enough job of that without manufactured or misrepresented "evidence", at times)

As such, their actions demonstrate that they do NOT have the best interests of MWO and it's playerbase in mind. If they did, they would have found more productive ways to approach it. But in most cases it was a matter of "RUSS DOESN'T LISTEN TO HOW I THINK MWO SHOULD BE DONE SO SCREW MWO AND ANYONE WHO DARE TO HAVE FUN BECAUSE IT'S NOT MY IDEA OF FUN!!!!"

I have been here longer than most, and had long history of interactions, good, bad and ugly with the parties in question. Several were even at one point "friends" on here and Twitter, etc. And so I got a front row seat to the thinking, action, and devolution of those in question. I still only need to click over to Reddit to see the real viewpoint and attitudes. They can put together all the platitudes and well reasoned tweets they want, to be fed through mouthpieces here. I also saw the unfiltered tweets, the ones sent to Russ that got them blocked by Russ, the ones that got them blocked by me, and their continued comments on Reddit in regards to MWO and Transverse.

That is not leadership. That is not a healthy way to represent the community and move forward.

Would several of them have enough support? Yes. There are still enough dissenters, with enough alt accounts to make them look like the most popular paragons of virtue in MWO. One only needs to see the highly selective, calculated and filtered comments being sent back.

When, and IF, they do enough that MWO is willing to have them back, when and if I look over at Tranverse or Reddit and don't see them actively attempting to destroy PGI, MWO and such, I would have no issue with them rejoining the community, if they can actually learn to accept PoVs beside their own, and understand that at the end of the day, PGI will make the game THEY see fit. We can hope it will be the one we want to, but at the end of the day they have to follow their vision, succeed or fail.

But even then, one does not simply take someone who has been exiled, then make them your new King (outside of fantasy novels or insurrections).

People say PGI has betrayed our trust and needs to earn it back. Fair enough. I say these individuals betrayed the Community's trust in their ability to be effective leaders when they allowed their egos to take over, and acted in such a way to get themselves banned. A real leader doesn't have temper tantrums when they do not get their way. A real leader does not need to drown out opposition voices with propaganda, lies and half truths. A real leader is more concerned about the truth, the community as a whole, than their own agendas.

In that regard, all these individuals have failed the community, spectacularly.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 13 September 2014 - 08:30 AM.

[CheebaMech]

[color=#959595]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. [/color]

The problem with that stance is that there were plenty banned that did not violate the ToS, that's why I feel a bit more lenient toward those that were banned being included in whatever form the " Player Council" may take.

[Bishop Steiner]

PappySmurf, on 13 September 2014 - 07:49 AM, said:

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.

I tend to agree with you on this.

Except:

This is a one time, one problem, olive branch from Russ. I don't think a player council is needed, tbh, or even what he had in mind. (Could be wrong). The problem is, if we want to have a chance to legitimately change the issue of ECM, we need to provide a clear Mission Statement to Russ. Not the rabble of a 1000 voices all clamoring for their little bit of the pie.

Not everybody will be happy whatever the results, but we need to have individuals willing to compile and streamline, then present "consensus" opinion. Not persons interested in simply pushing their own view of ECM. This is best done by a small committee of players. In fact, if anything, simply for the sake of sounding better, perhaps calling it a 1 time, Temporary Advisory Committee would help, lol. I dislike the sound of Player Council, TBH.

And if it works, it might open up more successful interaction between us and PGI on future balance issues. But then we do need to be careful, as it could easily become a bully pulpit. Which is why, if it works, and if we do it again in the future, the community needs to agree on bylaws regarding it, such as limits of terms, etc. Aka, IMO, if such a Committee was formed as needed for critical problem areas, it could be very helpful. BUT, to keep it from becoming an agenda and a political thing, only allow each person to act as a representative once or maybe twice. Thus, they have no long term "power base" and it might make people think twice about joining it, and wait til a problem they do feel strongly about comes up to want to join it.

Mind you, some of the bigger units, could still game that, but it is up to us, as a community to watch and police that.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 13 September 2014 - 08:29 AM.

[FDJustin]

PappySmurf, on 13 September 2014 - 07:49 AM, said:

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.

Huh? The matter is actually pretty easy to solve. The 'council' is just there to write up things. After the things are written up, put them to a vote. "The council has proposed we change lasers to shoot rainbows." "Yes: 22.4% No: 12% Impeach: 65.6%"

Or a less silly and more immediately relevant vote: ECM untouched: PI, ECM Option A: 13%, ECM Option B: 12%, Remove 22%, Most popular option: 49.86%
And if that doesn't cut it, a second round would go between: Refined Option A, Remove, and Popular Option.

Transparency on the issues the community has, as well as what they want done about it is the failsafe.
A council barely even matters, it's basically just saying "These are the people we want to come up with ideas / actually write out the proposition."

[TopDawg]

While I disagree with some of the sentiments posted here, I think any kind of player council, task force, or advisory board, should always have the mantra 'How does this help MWO?' in regards to any of their decisions.

Of course it's all easier said than done, as are most things, but just another thing to keep in mind.

[9thDeathscream]

The only agenda is how to improve MWO for the masses.

Edited by Akulla1980, 13 September 2014 - 08:27 AM.

[CMetz]

Those who are banned are banned for a reason. Forget whatever constructive thoughts they might have, I cannot rely on them to convey those thoughts in a civil and constructive manner. For this reason I believe that they have not earned and should not be given the opportunity to represent me and my thoughts on any manner, let alone this one.

[Bishop Steiner]

Mercules, on 13 September 2014 - 07:41 AM, said:

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.

I suppose it would also be very dependant on whom was in question. The 3-4 that immediately jump to mind that have been championed for this, ended up doing a lot more than getting one time frustrated, but either have trolled MWO since CB, or have vowed to destroy anything Russ, Paul and Bryan ever touch in the future, or have, for the last several months been going absolutely full bore against PGI BEFORE being banned.

Dissenters, and divergent opinions, are indeed important. Real progress cannot be made with them.

Dissenters who have repeatedly proven they cannot accept other people's PoV and Opinions, with a history of agenda and disrespect to any they don't agree with though? Those are an impediment to progress, not a catalyst of it.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 13 September 2014 - 08:32 AM.

[Garandos]

Thats some solid things you bring up there Bishop...

[PappySmurf]

Bishop Steiner (This is a one time, one problem, olive branch from Russ)

And this is why I say NO!!!! to a player counsel at all.

First of all is it a olive branch or a diversion? ECM is playable and is not working badly enough to effect a lot of game play or even the majority of outcomes of battles.I would much rather see RUSS & PGI staff working on new maps and game modes rather than this minor issue.

ECM is not broken to a point it should even be considered a priority right now with the game floundering and new player activation and retention at a all time low.

Edited by PappySmurf, 13 September 2014 - 08:32 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

PappySmurf, on 13 September 2014 - 08:32 AM, said:

Bishop Steiner (This is a one time, one problem, olive branch from Russ)

And this is why I say NO!!!! to a player counsel at all.

First of all is it a olive branch or a diversion? ECM is playable and is not working badly enough to effect a lot of game play or even the majority of outcomes of battles.I would much rather see RUSS & PGI staff working on new maps and game modes rather than this minor issue.

ECM is not broken to a point it should even be considered a priority right now with the game floundering and new player activation and retention at a all time low.

Well I disagree with your PoV about ECM (team with the most, and most effectively deployed, usually wins, in my experience, outside of Comp Matches), I understand and respect your opinion on the matter as a whole. Though hopefully, part of having gus, the community write up a game plan, is to minimize the drain on PGI resources from those other items, and streamline an acceptable implementation (hopefully thoroughly vetted via a weekend long PTS event) before actually being patched in game.

[Novakaine]

Akulla1980, on 13 September 2014 - 08:19 AM, said:

The only agenda is how to improve MWO for the masses.

Word.

[PappySmurf]

Bishop Steiner (Well I disagree with your PoV about ECM (team with the most, and most effectively deployed, usually wins, in my experience, outside of Comp Matches), I understand and respect your opinion on the matter as a whole. Though hopefully, part of having gus, the community write up a game plan, is to minimize the drain on PGI resources from those other items, and streamline an acceptable implementation (hopefully thoroughly vetted via a weekend long PTS event) before actually being patched in game. )
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes but to be honest your only looking at a ECM problem from the group queue perspective .Which the players represented is quite low compared to the solo/pug mm queue where ECM is not a big issue.

Edited by PappySmurf, 13 September 2014 - 08:39 AM.

[Stormwolf]

Most guys on the r/MWO board went into voluntary exile so to speak with only a few of the really vocal ones actually getting banned. Now the circumstances for getting banned vary from person to person, though quite a number of them were screwed over by PGI.

Hell, even I left the game because it became severely lacking and unenjoyable for me. I only returned to see if PGI would actually follow up on something for once.

[Khobai]

Quote

First of all is it a olive branch or a diversion?

I dont know. But I wish players wouldnt be so quick to throw away their own voices and ability to think for themselves to a handful of players elected by a forum popularity contest by a minority of the player base.

I still maintain the absolute best way to resolve the ECM issue is through pure democratic polling and everyone getting their own say in how the game gets changed.

We really dont need some council gaining PGI's ear and pushing their own seedy agendas.

[DocBach]

PappySmurf, on 13 September 2014 - 08:39 AM, said:

Yes but to be honest your only looking at a ECM problem from the group queue perspective .Which the players represented is quite low compared to the solo/pug mm queue where ECM is not a big issue.

I would argue that solo/pug players have a much more difficult time countering ECM than a coordinated, communicating team does, especially if a coordinated 4-man with ECM is on the other team.

[Hillslam]

No player council. Period.

[Bishop Steiner]

PappySmurf, on 13 September 2014 - 08:39 AM, said:

Bishop Steiner (Well I disagree with your PoV about ECM (team with the most, and most effectively deployed, usually wins, in my experience, outside of Comp Matches), I understand and respect your opinion on the matter as a whole. Though hopefully, part of having gus, the community write up a game plan, is to minimize the drain on PGI resources from those other items, and streamline an acceptable implementation (hopefully thoroughly vetted via a weekend long PTS event) before actually being patched in game. )
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes but to be honest your only looking at a ECM problem from the group queue perspective .Which the players represented is quite low compared to the solo/pug mm queue where ECM is not a big issue.

actually I pug about 75% of the time, and still find ECM to be a huge balance shifter. It's generally banned on SMM for a reason, because it is such a force multiplier. There Are certainly consideration in the PUG queue that are generally different though, as you are generally seeing less focused teamwork, so it seems to yo-yo wildly between hugely effective, to not an issue at all, depending on the composition of each team.

Anyhow, that is why we need more than one voice for sure, as even here, what you see, and what I see appear to differ, greatly.

[Bishop Steiner]

Khobai, on 13 September 2014 - 08:41 AM, said:

I dont know. But I wish players wouldnt be so quick to throw away their own voices and ability to think for themselves to a handful of players elected by a forum popularity contest by a minority of the player base.

I still maintain the absolute best way to resolve the ECM issue is through pure democratic polling and everyone getting their own say in how the game gets changed.

We really dont need some council gaining PGI's ear and pushing their own seedy agendas.

Hence the whole point we are getting at. Point of this "council", "task force" or "advisory committee", whatever one calls it, is not to get cults of personality to push their own PoV.

It's to get several individuals with a proven record of thinking things trough from multiple angles, perspective and such, who can articulate what is needed, CLEARLY, to create a series of proposals that we, as a community can then poll on. We have to be realistic that no straight poll will ever make everyone happy. And even the poll questions will always leave a lot missing, which is why any OP on said voting Poll needs to have each proposal, clearly explained.

because without clear, articulate mission statements, we have nothing to present Russ. And PGI can then say..well we gave you your chance, and you guys did jack all with it.

This is not about giving a handful of people some long term bully pulpit, or a powerbase to push agendas. Russ has given us a 1 time shot at trying to give PGI a reasonable, well reasoned proposal to fix ECM. Nothing more.

Pure "democracy" has virtually never worked, or been efficient, because everyone wants their voice heard, and it all becomes white noise. But having 5, 7, 9 proposals, put together by respected THINKERS from the community, then put to a community vote? That is a highly effective way to communicate this.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 13 September 2014 - 08:52 AM.

[EvilCow]

I have been a harsh critic and never spared sarcasm in the past, however, I am still here. Apparently being a critic, and and angry one too, is not a reason sufficient for a ban.

I would go for the rational types for this council.