126 replies to this topic

[Cion]

I've seen this whole Council/ECM thing from Russ's first post. I observed how it has developed and let the water settle a bit before forming my opinion. Here's what's going on..

We all have a tendency to see what we want to see and ignore others, and we are all guilty of this to some degree (me too). The only way to improve this is a conscious effort to reach out and see and validate other viewpoints.

You guys are probably thinking "wtf is this guy talking about?"

The perfect example of what I'm talking about is right under our noses in the "electing a player council" thread. I've read each and every post of the current 26+pages on it (wrote this last night while traveling). This thread has a very active discussion on nominees, and why they should or should not be in the council, with a lot of good names being brought up.

You want to know what the most common mention is above all?

That's the idea of rejecting the "council".

I've seen dozens and dozens of posts from different people clearly stating that they "do not want a council". This opinion is more frequent than any name mentioned for "nomination" in the thread, yet it mostly goes unnoticed or ignored.Those who want a council mostly ignore those who do not want it.

How can the council be representative of the community when it ignores the biggest unified voice? Yet the thread carries on as if these guys were internet ads.

The idea for the council is to get 80% community approval on an ECM proposal. The truth is we cant even get 80% approving the creation of a council. That's the reality we're experiencing that many choose to ignore and refuse to see.

The "representative" council already failed because those advocating for it are ignoring those that oppose it.

Thanks.

PS:200 post!

edit: one missed spoiler code.
----------------
Clarification 1

Respect for those being nominated.

Spoiler

That being said, I have a LOT of respect for the vast majority of those being consistently nominated. I've been around this game for a long time, read forums very frequently, etc. I recognize the colossal, yes, colossal effort many forum posters do to provide excellent and thorough viewpoints, guides and solutions. Whenever I see these guys in a match I recognize them and thank them. Whether it's Homeless Bill, Bishop, Heffay, Sandpit, etc. etc.

Clarification 2

Some are thinking "well, most of people on that thread are FOR a council".

Spoiler

Yes, but it's not unified AT ALL. There is debate, starting to get heated, on WHO should be in the council, WHAT the council should do, and HOW BIG it should be. Heck, there's debates on what criteria to use for electing people. I've seen age, marital status, number of children, college education, money paid, longevity, number of posts, etc. That's besides the debates on whether or not to include "banned" players, or even "good standing" players. What about size? 3,5,7,10,12 and a strong opiniated back and forth. I've seen proposals for a "house" and a "senate", and other ideas.
Fact is there is no 80% on even ONE of these aspects of the council. Therefore, even though most might favor a vague Utopian idea of a "council fully representing the community" there is no easy or even possible way of doing that. Sounds great in concept, doesn't work in reality.

Clarification 3

Idea that those who oppose the council do not listen to those who want one either.

Spoiler

Sounds like a child's argument.
If you want to implement something new, change the status quo, it's on you and the burden of proof is yours. That's the logic applied in many systems including the legal system. It's on you "advocates" to prove that you listen to the "nay-sayers" because you advocates want to change something. This is even more accentuated if the council implementation is based on the idea that it is "representative of the community". You'd expect that those proposing this would not institute it by force but include "the community" in deciding if even to create a council. Russ mentioned a rought number of 80% approval. Get 80% approval on the creation of the council, listen and discuss with those who oppose the council idea, and I'll shut up.

Clarification 4

Some are thinking: "well then what do you propose?, you can't just say "no" and not give a solution."

Spoiler

1st. I can if the new idea is WORSE than the current one, OR if the idea lacks integrity or substance, OR if I see it bringing more problems than what we have now.
2nd. Proposal: Add a poll in game with one issue to be discussed per week. Keep it simple and short, 1 question, with a link to a forum post for more details if desired.
Yeah it's not perfect but its better than what we have now and much better than an unmaterialized idea of a semi-perfect representative council that many players do not want. There is clear opposition to the council for many players. There is basically no opposition to in-game polls. People can and will blame the council for things, but no one can really blame anyone else when a poll is in the game itself.

Final Thought
I've been around enough to know what will likely end up happening anyway.

Spoiler

I bet this thread goes unheard, along with those dozens and dozens of posts rejecting the council idea. It will probably go largely ignored by those who are for the council. PGI will probably actually read it (who would have thought that after ALL the flak players throw at PGI for not listening I would notice that PGI today will listen MORE than many players). I bet a council still gets "elected", and that those opposing it are still ignored. I bet the council gets a proposal to PGI and its implemented mostly like it will be originally presented. PGI will do this to make the core base that makes noise happy. I can't blame em.
"WTF Cion, so you are saying it will work? why the ____ are you opposed to it then?"
Because it will be done ignoring a large group of players, yet people will call the council "representative of the community" and many will pat themselves in the back. Because the ideas of some and their close circle of friends that think are good ideas get implemented when a large group that came to the forums and expressed their opposition might think otherwise, yet this group is ignored. Those opposing the council ARE A BIG PART of the community, but the council will be "representative" because people are pushing for including banned players that have been disrespectful or harassers to the devs and other players.

Edited by Cion, 14 September 2014 - 05:21 PM.

[Targetloc]

It's really not that we're ignoring you.

There's just not much to discuss when the opposing side's whole argument is: "You guys are all elitist and don't have a clue what the REAL community wants!"

1) How do you know these reps can't come up with a solution that will satisfy the community? I'm in touch with quite a few people who play the game, both old school fans, and newer friends that have tried it out, and I have a pretty good sense for what the 'non-forum' crowd feels about the game. It's not hard to imagine 9 reps that are a lot more "social" than myself have a feel for what's going on in the larger mechosphere.

Claiming they're just going to form an insular circle jerk is pure speculation on your part.


2) It doesn't really matter if you think the reps perfectly represent you on not. From what's been laid out so far, they're going to come up with a couple proposals and the community at large gets a vote. If what they propose doesn't satisfy you, its as simple as voting against it. If you're right that they won't be representing the majority interest, it will just get voted down, so what is there to be afraid of?

3) Part of the reason you need a council is because there's always going to be disruptive elements that just want to point out how horrible and doomed to failure any possible solution is. Those guys want a better game too, but it's generally best if they're put in a corner until it's time to vote, since they'd rather point out how smart they are for figuring out why all your ideas are doomed to failure, rather than be productive. *cough*

[Cion]

I appreciate the feedback, but either I explained wrong or we are not communicating.

My point is we should decide if even a council should be in the first place. Many have voiced their opinions against it. I disagree with what you did in putting each and every player that says this in the [color=#959595] "You guys are all elitist and don't have a clue what the REAL community wants!"[/color] bucket.Many have deeper opinions than that.

I never said they would form an insular circle of jerk, or anything like it. Most likely the things proposed will be "good" to "decent".

What bothers me is the imposing of a council and calling it "representative" when a big part of the people they are supposed to represent are against the forming of such body in the first place.

If you look carefully I an not worried about "my agenda" or "that my solution gets implemented". Of course no body will truly represent everyone, that's obvious.

What I did say is that include those votes of no council. If those are heard, debated, rather than ignored, I'm cool with that.

There's something wrong with imposing something on a bunch of people that had no voice in it and then calling it "representative". Either impose it call it for what it is OR have the even the formation of such body be voted upon.

cheers!

[Kaspirikay]

It'll turn into a shitfest like Eve's CSM. I guarantee it.

[Kiiyor]

Sigh. I've said this in a few threads: The existence of a player council does not necessitate anyone agreeing with their proposals. The idea behind this is to elect some people that can compile community concerns, put together proposals for addressing them, and allow the forums to vote on these proposals.

If you don't like something, vote against it! It's the basis for government in almost every developed and not-crap nation on the planet!

Heck, I think we're just screwing around too much with this whole 'vote for people' thing. I think those that really care should just put the damn proposal together, and then refine/vote on it. We're already forming committees to discuss forming committees! Someone take the bull by the horns! At least give us something to vote for!

[Kaspirikay]

Kiiyor, on 14 September 2014 - 06:09 PM, said:

We're already forming committees to discuss forming committees!

Such is democracy without a leader.

EDIT: Why arn't you heading the committee? You seem to have the right attitude for the job.

Edited by Kaspirikay, 14 September 2014 - 06:26 PM.

[IceSerpent]

Cion, on 14 September 2014 - 05:18 PM, said:

You want to know what the most common mention is above all?

That's the idea of rejecting the "council".

I've seen dozens and dozens of posts from different people clearly stating that they "do not want a council". This opinion is more frequent than any name mentioned for "nomination" in the thread, yet it mostly goes unnoticed or ignored.Those who want a council mostly ignore those who do not want it.

I guess you didn't read that thread (and what Russ siad) closely enough. It's not players who "want a council", it's PGI who wants a "spokesperson".

Quote

How can the council be representative of the community when it ignores the biggest unified voice? Yet the thread carries on as if these guys were internet ads.

It's not supposed to be representative in a sense that those people make decisions in our name, but in a sense that they come up with a proposal and if/when that proposal is accepted by 80% of other players, "council" presents the proposal to PGI.

So, saying that you don't want a council is effectively the same as saying that you don't want to talk to PGI, and if that's the case why bother stating that? You can simply elect to not participate.

[XxXAbsolutZeroXxX]

No council please.

Trial by e-combat.

.

[EgoSlayer]

Cion, on 14 September 2014 - 05:18 PM, said:

Clarification 4

Some are thinking: "well then what do you propose?, you can't just say "no" and not give a solution."
1st. I can if the new idea is WORSE than the current one, OR if the idea lacks integrity or substance, OR if I see it bringing more problems than what we have now.
2nd. Proposal: Add a poll in game with one issue to be discussed per week. Keep it simple and short, 1 question, with a link to a forum post for more details if desired.
Yeah it's not perfect but its better than what we have now and much better than an unmaterialized idea of a semi-perfect representative council that many players do not want. There is clear opposition to the council for many players. There is basically no opposition to in-game polls. People can and will blame the council for things, but no one can really blame anyone else when a poll is in the game itself.

And where exactly are these poll suggestions supposed to come from? PGI?
No thanks.

The majority of the 'no council' people don't understand that the goal of the "council" is to come up with these poll items to boil down the 3.5 million posts on this site to some focused group of ideas. PGI isn't going to do that.

And this discussion about council vs no council is exactly what is wrong with these forums - there can't be agreements on even simple things, like how to collate ideas. Which was probably part of why Russ tasked the community with this project in the first place - to prove to the community how hard it is for PGI to do or change *anything* because of the ridiculous forum wars that go on.

What's the worst that can happen if the council forms? That it leads to a forum for player generated ideas to actually be evaluated by PGI? Or that nothing at all happens?
The idea that some crap/troll idea gets pushed through and that PGI actually implements it won't happen because PGI still has the final say.

[Kiiyor]

Kaspirikay, on 14 September 2014 - 06:24 PM, said:

Such is democracy without a leader.

EDIT: Why arn't you heading the committee? You seem to have the right attitude for the job.

I think i'd just be another voice drowning out against the multitudes. Plus, the things that seem to drive people to rage don't really affect me as much as they do others. I believe i'm far too tolerant for this sort of thing.

I am, however, prepared to provide science to anyone that requires numbers.

I think we have enough leaders on the forums, and they are more than capable of putting a proposal together. Then the REAL leaders, the hordes of unwashed masses, will be able to vote.

I think people are crediting the council with having far more power than they will, and for being far more nefarious than they actually will. The council will be a facilitator, not a decider.

Edit: maybe it's the name. 'The council' sounds like a group of b-list villains from a GIJOE movie. We should have a vote about voting to change the name. 'Totally not evil' or 'The please give us a chance conglomerate'.

Edited by Kiiyor, 14 September 2014 - 06:39 PM.

[MischiefSC]

First, the vast majority of posts are people just listing who they vote for. It's 34 pages. There are less individual people saying they don't want a council than there are actual pages in the discussion. So to start with your position is flawed.

Second, there is not 'not have a council or spokesperson' option. That's not what is on the table. In fact that entirely negates the whole point of the idea; the point is not 'PGI gives us a few choices to vote on', the point is 'the players put together their own idea of how they want PGI to work'. So if you want to take advantage of the opportunity that PGI has put forward this is the format you get.

Third, there is no authority to the council (task force is a better term I think) in any way, shape or form. All they're going to do is collect the ideas that the community puts forward and condenses it and presents the ideas in a format not mixed in with 20 pages of static and people arguing about sync-dropping and laser heat. Then the community votes and they take the winner to PGI.

This isn't some idea we came up with. This is PGI saying 'You want to directly influence the games development? Okay, here's what we want and how we want it. Good luck.'

If you don't want that option then don't take it. Don't participate. Unfortunate but that is what it is. It's part of why the goal is 80%, not 100%. Your opinion is valued in the 80%, if you don't want to participate and prefer being in the 20%, well shine on you crazy diamond.

Those are the options. 'Make PGI do what I want the way I want them to do it cuz I don't like dealing with groups of people' (or whatever your reasoning is) isn't on the table here.

[1453 R]

Unfortunately Cion, Russ has put the community in a very tight spot.

We have a limited amount of time in which to come up with what amounts to a universally satisfactory solution to ECM, which cannot affect any facet of the game but ECM, and if we can't do that then Piranha has carte blanch to tell us, any time we give them guff over not listening to us, "Hey, we gave you guys a chance to fix this thing! You couldn't even figure out how to figure out how to fix it. Just settle down, quit flaming people on the forums, and let us do our jobs."

Simply saying that the majority vote is against instituting a player council does not unfortunately address the fact that if we don't do everything in our power to jump on this, everything we can to prove that we're worth listening to, the company's never going to listen to us again and there won't be a damn thing we can say about it.

So no, I'm not really prepared to simply accept a vote of no-vote. We need to do something with this chance Russ has given us, and if the players opposed to a player council or ECM task force don't want to do that, then they need to suggest other methods by which we can attempt to come to an 80% consensus. This is no time at all to do nothing but tear down someone else's ideas.

We need to do SOMETHING, and we need to do it in something of a hurry. If we do nothing, or if we keep pulling in a million directions at once, then we all may as well just stop posting altogether because we'll have forfeited our right to try and work with Piranha to improve this game.

[Kaspirikay]

Kiiyor, on 14 September 2014 - 06:35 PM, said:

I think i'd just be another voice drowning out against the multitudes. Plus, the things that seem to drive people to rage don't really affect me as much as they do others. I believe i'm far too tolerant for this sort of thing.

I am, however, prepared to provide science to anyone that requires numbers.

I think we have enough leaders on the forums, and they are more than capable of putting a proposal together. Then the REAL leaders, the hordes of unwashed masses, will be able to vote.

I think people are crediting the council with having far more power than they will, and for being far more nefarious than they actually will. The council will be a facilitator, not a decider.

I see, good that we have a level headed advisor, then.

I'm against having a player council because it will cause animosity within the community. If something goes wrong, and it will, people will start pointing fingers and placing blame to each other.

However, seeing those who want to start something still floundering about after 2-3 days without even a semblance of a committee is quite a frustrating show.

As you said, someone needs to take charge and tell people what to do. Everyone is currently sitting around the table and asking each other who wants/should to lead when its time for someone to step up from the turmoil and get things together.

[Prezimonto]

My guess is that Russ actually wants the vocal minority actively engaged. As you note there are some actually amazing people around here who honestly have great ideas.

In the long run I predict one of three things happening:
1. PGI puts up the vote for a council without a "no one" option... meaning we'll get a council who can then toil away in comittee work for 6 months.

2. As you suggest nothing will happen because we can't even get 80% of players to agree to a council EVEN IF they think there's work do be done, and PGI won't touch it just so they can claim some sort of moral high ground about never pleasing everyone.

3. Far outlier: PGI implements the in-game poll (with or without the council) and all this becomes pointless.

.........................

Now that being said: I honestly have no idea why people are up in arms about a council under the conditions Russ laid out. They're going to be essentially in-effectual because they need something like (not exact) 80% player consensus. That means no plan with detail will EVER pass muster and their recommendations to PGI will boil down to, "ECM need love, please fix it" because it's at that level of vague pointlessness that you can get 80% of thousands of people to agree to something.

_____
Here's an example of the level of detail that a thread can go do and garner near universal support:
http://mwomercs.com/...based-gameplay/

It's essentially a whole thread dedicated to wanting more and different gameplay modes. Everyone can agree because it's exceptionally simple to say more game modes will be more fun.

Edited by Prezimonto, 14 September 2014 - 07:08 PM.

[Chip Danger]

Reading back through posts of most the voted for players. I'd hate any of them to be my voice. One at one time even tried to get alpha strikes pulled from the game.

[MischiefSC]

Kaspirikay, on 14 September 2014 - 06:44 PM, said:

I see, good that we have a level headed advisor, then.

I'm against having a player council because it will cause animosity within the community. If something goes wrong, and it will, people will start pointing fingers and placing blame to each other.

However, seeing those who want to start something still floundering about after 2-3 days without even a semblance of a committee is quite a frustrating show.

As you said, someone needs to take charge and tell people what to do. Everyone is currently sitting around the table and asking each other who wants/should to lead when its time for someone to step up from the turmoil and get things together.

Waiting has a purpose. Some people only hit the forums every few days. You don't want to to have this vote happen and many people say they didn't get a chance to nominate who they wanted. These sorts of things take days; there's a lot of chatter going on but we've also got a refined list of candidates and a plan to communicate with each to make sure they're willing to be nominated.

We've also got permission from PGI to put a poll up (official) on Tuesday with the list of nominations to vote on.

As to what happens with those votes? By Tuesday we're going to have to just pull the trigger on how many people are going to be on the council. We seem to be running somewhere from 3-7. That'll get sorted in short order.

So, we have a plan. Don't mistake the constant chatter for not having a plan - this is just exactly and precisely why we need a council. Pulling community content out of the chatter.

[Tezcatli]

Well they didn't say the Council would be a persistent thing.

I personally don't have a grudge against the devs. Don't agree with everything they've done. But I was content to let them keep on. I've seen worse games. APB comes to mind. Now they're giving the community a chance to decide something. Something that they're not currently busy working on. I mean how much worse/better can it be if the council comes up with something instead of the devs?

[Cion]

Kiiyor, on 14 September 2014 - 06:09 PM, said:

...We're already forming committees to discuss forming committees! Someone take the bull by the horns! At least give us something to vote for!

haha, so true. it sucks but sometimes it's needed if ppl say it's a good representation of players. We can skip the meetings to plan meetings thing, let's just not pat ourselves in the back by calling it "all inclusive" cause it's not. It's got nothing to do with me liking or disliking their ECM proposals.

IceSerpent, on 14 September 2014 - 06:25 PM, said:

I guess you didn't read that thread (and what Russ siad) closely enough. It's not players who "want a council", it's PGI who wants a "spokesperson".



It's not supposed to be representative in a sense that those people make decisions in our name, but in a sense that they come up with a proposal and if/when that proposal is accepted by 80% of other players, "council" presents the proposal to PGI.

So, saying that you don't want a council is effectively the same as saying that you don't want to talk to PGI, and if that's the case why bother stating that? You can simply elect to not participate.

Very true point, it was Russ that started this one, not the players (RIP save mwo).
I am not saying I don't want it. What I am pointing out is the repetitive lack of discussion or inclusion I noticed on the topic regarding those that are voicing their opposition. The idea can be good if implemented correctly. What I'm seeing is a mess of messes with people arguing about everything about this. Currently it's not "representative".

EgoSlayer, on 14 September 2014 - 06:32 PM, said:

And this discussion about council vs no council is exactly what is wrong with these forums - there can't be agreements on even simple things, like how to collate ideas. ...

so what's wrong with putting a poll out there for one week asking the community if we want to proceed with the idea? What if it's 50/50 or some other proportion? Can we say for sure that "this is what the community wants" when we have people saying "no", but we dont know how many exactly? what if it was 60/40 against? it could be an overwhelming 95/5 in favor, but we dont know.

Kiiyor, on 14 September 2014 - 06:35 PM, said:

I am, however, prepared to provide science SCIENCE! to anyone that requires numbers.

fixed it . epic posts BTW, read all of them.

MischiefSC, on 14 September 2014 - 06:42 PM, said:

First, the vast majority of posts are people just listing who they vote for. It's 34 pages. There are less individual people saying they don't want a council than there are actual pages in the discussion. So to start with your position is flawed.

so what is my position that is flawed? I'm saying there is a considerable chuck of people that dont want it, but we are ignoring them. that to me is not representative. We just "move along" like they dont exist.

MischiefSC, on 14 September 2014 - 06:42 PM, said:

Second, there is not 'not have a council or spokesperson' option. That's not what is on the table. In fact that entirely negates the whole point of the idea; the point is not 'PGI gives us a few choices to vote on', the point is 'the players put together their own idea of how they want PGI to work'. So if you want to take advantage of the opportunity that PGI has put forward this is the format you get.

.. (task force is a better term I think) ...

valid points

MischiefSC, on 14 September 2014 - 06:42 PM, said:

If you don't want that option then don't take it. Don't participate. Unfortunate but that is what it is. It's part of why the goal is 80%, not 100%. Your opinion is valued in the 80%, if you don't want to participate and prefer being in the 20%, well shine on you crazy diamond.

lolz, no need to get personal man. I'm pointing my opinion of a big flaw of the way this is being handled. To me that means "let's fix the flaw" rather than "scratch everything". The idea has merits, but in my opinion the way it's going is not only not good, but contradicting itself. Forums are to share opinions and let ppl read and make up their own minds. If it gets elected I plan to participate, just like I've voted on many polls before.

[Kaspirikay]

MischiefSC, on 14 September 2014 - 07:07 PM, said:

Waiting has a purpose. Some people only hit the forums every few days. You don't want to to have this vote happen and many people say they didn't get a chance to nominate who they wanted. These sorts of things take days; there's a lot of chatter going on but we've also got a refined list of candidates and a plan to communicate with each to make sure they're willing to be nominated.

We've also got permission from PGI to put a poll up (official) on Tuesday with the list of nominations to vote on.

As to what happens with those votes? By Tuesday we're going to have to just pull the trigger on how many people are going to be on the council. We seem to be running somewhere from 3-7. That'll get sorted in short order.

So, we have a plan. Don't mistake the constant chatter for not having a plan - this is just exactly and precisely why we need a council. Pulling community content out of the chatter.

That's good. I think the vote should be advertised to players in the game as well. Most of them never visit the forum, I doubt they would know this is going on.

EDIT: @kiiyor how about something less intimidating like "The Chamber of Chinchillas"

Edited by Kaspirikay, 14 September 2014 - 07:23 PM.

[Cion]

1453 R, on 14 September 2014 - 06:43 PM, said:

Unfortunately Cion, Russ has put the community in a very tight spot.

We have a limited amount of time in which to come up with what amounts to a universally satisfactory solution to ECM, which cannot affect any facet of the game but ECM, and if we can't do that then Piranha has carte blanch to tell us, any time we give them guff over not listening to us, "Hey, we gave you guys a chance to fix this thing! You couldn't even figure out how to figure out how to fix it. Just settle down, quit flaming people on the forums, and let us do our jobs."

Simply saying that the majority vote is against instituting a player council does not unfortunately address the fact that if we don't do everything in our power to jump on this, everything we can to prove that we're worth listening to, the company's never going to listen to us again and there won't be a damn thing we can say about it.

So no, I'm not really prepared to simply accept a vote of no-vote. We need to do something with this chance Russ has given us, and if the players opposed to a player council or ECM task force don't want to do that, then they need to suggest other methods by which we can attempt to come to an 80% consensus. This is no time at all to do nothing but tear down someone else's ideas.

We need to do SOMETHING, and we need to do it in something of a hurry. If we do nothing, or if we keep pulling in a million directions at once, then we all may as well just stop posting altogether because we'll have forfeited our right to try and work with Piranha to improve this game.

I can see what you mean. You have a point. "food for thought"....

Prezimonto, on 14 September 2014 - 06:52 PM, said:

.....
Now that being said: I honestly have no idea why people are up in arms about a council under the conditions Russ laid out. They're going to be essentially in-effectual because they need something like (not exact) 80% player consensus. That means no plan with detail will EVER pass muster and their recommendations to PGI will boil down to, "ECM need love, please fix it" because it's at that level of vague pointlessness that you can get 80% of thousands of people to agree to something.

yeah that's a high number. I believe AMS toggle would have been over 80%, but that's about it, lol . if an ECM proposal comes that 80% players agree to I'll be pleasantly flabbergasted...