39 replies to this topic

[MischiefSC]

I'm starting a new thread because I don't want to muddle up the 'nomination' thread. That thread is for picking who you want to nominate and is already muddled enough.

There are also a couple of threads for discussing the validity of the idea of a council at all. Given that 'We'll just tell you what we want to do and you can vote on it' wasn't on the PGI list, nor was 'We'll invest the time and effort into distilling consensus out of the community on what to develop', this thread is for discussing the number of players to have on the task force/council/drunken frat party/whatever you want to call it.

Also, and this is rather critical to understand when discussing the options below,

This council of players has absolutely no authority at all in any way. They're not 'deciding' or 'voting' for anything. They are just collecting community ideas, condensing them and then presenting them to the community to vote on.

So here are the two concepts for this thread:

1. Do we break the council into 3 segments, those being Solo, Group and Competitive? If not do we just have a straight election or do you have a different method of assembling a group of players for the council?

2. How many? Current options seem to run 3-9. How many is enough to get a good group of folks to gather and express the ideas the community puts forward without being too many?

[1453 R]

1.) Yes. Even though the task force has no deciding voice in the final votes, they're still responsible for collating the information, condensing it into usable form, and will likely take a lead role in guiding the community discussions on the project. NOT a lead role as in "This is my dog, I want you all to vote for it", but merely pointing out facts of life in their given level of play and offering constructive feedback from their vantage point of experience on what might make an idea better or how to edit the presentation of an idea to make ti easier to understand or discuss. We need folks from all sections of the game to help make that process as all-inclusive as possible.

2.) 7 sounds like the right number to me. Or possibly 6; since this group has no voting or decisive power, it doesn't really need to be a tiebreaker number anyways, and 6 guys would be enough to get two players each from the Solo, Casual Group, and Ultracomp buckets. 3 is nowhere near enough and 9 is too many. 6 or 7, depending on whether you like even numbers or not, or whether you want two of each game bracket or two of each game bracket and Koniving.

[Cion]

so do you want them to be proportionally representative of the player base, or do you want a team of experts with different areas of specialization?

if proportionally representative then we would need to know around how many players PUG vs TEAM (generally) vs Competitive.
it's different having 1 pug, 1 team, 1 comp vs 5 pugs, 2 team, 1 comp.

if you wanna keep it simple and get it going, get the top 5 or so people and call it good. If this is gonna go, lets go, and not call it "representative" but just a bunch of passionate and smart ppl. to be truly representative we would need to go the long route... prob not the best for this "experiment"

my 2 cbills.

[ArchMage Sparrowhawk]

Task Force. I like that better than "players council"

[Piney II]

This is the only active MW ticket in existence now.

I've loved the IP for many years and I just PLAY it to have fun.

I'll leave the QQ to those who are never satisfied and just like to rage.

See you in-game. .

[Mothykins]

The major thing we need is AT LEAST TWO people with the mind to handle how everything interlocks, who understand the science behind the proposals.

In total, probably Five, though I expect them to have a few people not "incuded" in the group they work with. I mean, really, it's gonna happen.

I agree with Cion, actually, in some respects. We need the passionate folks more than total representation.

Won't the amount of people actually putting forth ideas for this group to sort through be representative as it is?

[Carrie Harder]

The absolute minimum should be no lower than 5. The maximum might be somewhere around 10, because any higher might get fusterclucked a bit.

[MischiefSC]

I'd go with 7 myself. 2 competitive, 2 group and 3 solo.

Task force is such a better term if still a bit pompous. I'm going to go with calling it that from here on out, see if we can change some of the erroneous perception that this group of players is going to decide or control anything.

[Targetloc]

6.

[Aresye]

6 is a good number. Could do 2 from each group.

[MischiefSC]

6 has a lot going for it - we don't need an odd number for a tie-breaker, they're not voting on anything.

[Khobai]

Quote

I'd go with 7 myself. 2 competitive, 2 group and 3 solo.

0 competitive would be best. Those people should really have no say.

7 random scrubs from the solo queue as a council sounds good to me.

[MischiefSC]

Khobai, on 14 September 2014 - 09:38 PM, said:

0 competitive would be best. Those people should really have no say.

7 random scrubs from the solo queue as a council sounds good to me.

Picked how? How do you get ones who want to participate? So their job is to collect ECM suggestions and ideas and turn that into game mechanics we can vote on and offer to PGI. Just...7 random people will do a good job at that? They'll create something that the community, in turn, will vote positively on?

Khobai I'm not sure how often this needs said to you or the words that need said so you understand it -

They are not voting on anything.

There is no vote they will make.

The task force isn't voting.

They don't have a special vote.

The vote that will happen won't happen on the task force.

They are not deciding anything on their own.

They are not making a decision on their own.

There is no task force decision to be made on what is and is not going to be implemented.

They are not the deciders.

The community, not the task force, will both create and vote upon the changes to ECM .

The ECM change that we decide upon will have been created, offered and voted upon by the community, not the task force.

Both ECM change create and ECM change selection will be done by the whole community, not the task force.

What else needs said for you to understand this? More words? Less? Do I need to use google translate to get it into a language you are more comfortable with?

Look. They're not voting. No task force vote. They're not 'representing' anyone. No representation. Nothing to represent. They are not representatives. They are being picked from different segments of game population just to get as broad a set of eyes on the data as possible and as wide a set of handlers that people in the community trust as possible.

We, the community, are suggesting changes to ECM. They are collecting them for us to then vote on. We're going to vote. They print that **** out and show it to PGI.

Does this help?

Please, answer these questions for me:

1. WHAT IS THE TASK FORCE VOTING ON?

2. WHAT DECISIONS IS THE TASK FORCE MAKING?

3. HOW MANY PLAYERS DOES EACH TASK FORCE MEMBER REPRESENT?

4. WHO IS CREATING THE ECM CHANGE SUGGESTIONS?

5. WHO IS VOTING ON THE ECM CHANGE SUGGESTIONS?

Please, answer those. Simple questions so we can start on an even keel.

[Khobai]

so much anger. you know im just trolling right?

[Carrie Harder]

Khobai, on 14 September 2014 - 09:53 PM, said:

so much anger. you know im just trolling right?

Edited by Carrie Harder, 14 September 2014 - 09:54 PM.

[1453 R]

Khobai, on 14 September 2014 - 09:53 PM, said:

so much anger. you know im just trolling right?

Please don't. This is too important to screw with and muck up with trollfacery. Even if you don't agree with it, a lot of folks are putting a lot of effort into trying to see this through. Please respect the effort if not the idea.

[MischiefSC]

Khobai, on 14 September 2014 - 09:53 PM, said:

so much anger. you know im just trolling right?

Pfft, I'm miles from angry.

Please don't troll though. If we blow this because we suck or we are stupid or we don't deserve nice things. We don't need to shoot ourselves in the foot. If we do this and do it well we potentially have an opportunity to move on to things like JJs, weapon convergence, heat caps, etc. etc. etc. PGI is a business and it's reasonable to say they want to sell us what we want to buy. You have a lot of opinions and everything else aside have solid insights into what is and is not useful with ECM/IW. That we need. Trolling we don't.

[Delas Ting Usee]

My 2 cents - you want to be taken seriously then there ought to be some sort of structure/guidelines for nominating a council member.
if council members are voted by popular vote I know for a fact I could get 200 plus votes in a couple of days but I also know that I WOULD NOT make the best representative.
We need by-laws for the council.
As it is, I do not want players like Homeless Bill or Koniving to BE on the council at all. I appreciate all they've done in the past and have nothing but respect for them but I would like FRESH eyes and not players with baggage which can be both a good or bad thing.
Other stuff I would like:
I would like 9 players on the council.
I would the council to be representative of the casual & competitive segments of the player population
I would like term/issue limits on said council members - current council will work on ECM and once that's done - NEW council please.
I would like at least 2 on the council to be from Europe and 2 to be from Asia/Oceanic. Let the high pingers be represented.
I would like that council members DO NOT receive anything from PGI as it might be construed as graft/bribe.
I would like the council recommendation to PGI to be publish.
I would like council members to be on TS for 3 dates for a Q & A session before and after recommendation.
I would like that council members have a minimum of 500 posts on the forums - to show that they've contributed to the mech community and also allow the public to scroll through their posts to find out more about the person on said council.

[MischiefSC]

Delas Ting Usee, on 14 September 2014 - 10:19 PM, said:

My 2 cents - you want to be taken seriously then there ought to be some sort of structure/guidelines for nominating a council member.
if council members are voted by popular vote I know for a fact I could get 200 plus votes in a couple of days but I also know that I WOULD NOT make the best representative.
We need by-laws for the council.
As it is, I do not want players like Homeless Bill or Koniving to BE on the council at all. I appreciate all they've done in the past and have nothing but respect for them but I would like FRESH eyes and not players with baggage which can be both a good or bad thing.
Other stuff I would like:
I would like 9 players on the council.
I would the council to be representative of the casual & competitive segments of the player population
I would like term/issue limits on said council members - current council will work on ECM and once that's done - NEW council please.
I would like at least 2 on the council to be from Europe and 2 to be from Asia/Oceanic. Let the high pingers be represented.
I would like that council members DO NOT receive anything from PGI as it might be construed as graft/bribe.
I would like the council recommendation to PGI to be publish.
I would like council members to be on TS for 3 dates for a Q & A session before and after recommendation.
I would like that council members have a minimum of 500 posts on the forums - to show that they've contributed to the mech community and also allow the public to scroll through their posts to find out more about the person on said council.

I get the concept and I've considered something similar. Next time perhaps if this is successful and we've go the time that is a rock solid idea.

Currently though we have until Tuesday to get a list of names to nominate. Getting a handle on what the criteria for them should take way more time than that.

Also remember they're not representing anything - they're just sorting player created ideas into something useful. We want a council of folks who have a general consensus of support so that when they say 'Here's the condensed version of player recommendations on ECM' people are to some greater or lesser degree inclined to listen.

They'll certainly debate their opinions on them, but so will everyone else on the forums. The final vote on what we do or do not put forward to PGI will be done by general poll. They're not voting on anything on their own.

It absolutely will be published - that's what we're voting on. What we voted on is what gets put to PGI.

[TheCaptainJZ]

6 sounds good. 2 for each group as you said. They can work in pairs to collect and consolidate feedback.
If there is a 7th, that person's job should be administrative. They can do the secretary-like work with documenting discussions and writing write-ups and keeping the Task Force on task.