103 replies to this topic

[therealswilly]

I think we should create a central command of the oldest vets(Who know the Universe and game best)

From there Vets are given their status based upon what games and how long they've been playing, of course this would require us to have faith that no one would lie.

This would be a temporary setup til we're able to find the real cream of the crop who want to lead.

[Ilithi Dragon]

Honestly, I don't see that working very well, and I really only see that leading to the problems with ego that Ito mentioned, which would be the end of us.

Catamount and I had been working on a system that we intend to propose, a sort of 'constitution' proposal. Catamount was going to be working on a mega post to present it, but he hasn't gotten around to it yet. I'll poke at him later, and see if we can't get something put up by the end of the day.

[Aeneas]

I think that is an excelent idea,Ilithi. Realswilly, the issue with having the COC based upon "Veterancy" simply does not work at this stage. Yes, there are some of us that have been involved with battletech from the very begining, but everyone is going to enter this game on relatively equal footing, namely, none of us have played and gotten experience in the final version of this game. Even people who have read the books and know the timeline may not have an advantage because things are being changed in the canon of the universe. Gauss Rifle? Before the Clans? Really?

But I digress, I very much like the idea of a constitution as a basis for our organization. It would allow for greater structure with less potential abuse of power. I think that having something like that in our house would be a huge advantage overal.
And signing it could be your way into the House structure, kinda like a terms and conditions agreement.

[Ilithi Dragon]

Okay, here is what Catamount and I put together. There might be a few minor things that I am missing, and all of this is just our proposal, subject to whatever changes, revisions, or complete disregard the FWL community sees fit.


The basis of the idea would be to organize ourselves into Regions, based on time periods in which players generally play. There would be four eight-hour time periods (i.e. a 0700 - 1500 period, a 1300 - 2100 period, a 1900 - 0300 period, and a 0100 - 0900 period), plus an additional Region for players who have variable or unpredictable schedules, that can 'fill in' whenever.


Voting will be based on individual player votes. Players will be required to be registered in a unit within a Region to be eligible to vote. Units can be either guild-like Companies (which must consist of at least six players, enough for a single Extended Lance or two Reduced Lances), or Independent Lances (which must consist of at least three players), but a player must be registered within a unit with the Regional Administrator in order for their vote to count. Players who do not wish to organize within lances and companies would not gain any benefit from our organizational structure, and so should not get any vote in how we operate that structure. Players within the variable-time Region will still group into Lances and Companies within their own Regions, though such grouping is more for the sake of formality and general organization than for them to operate with a specific unit. They may also group within Companies in other Regions.


Each region would have a Regional Administrator, not a commander, who would administer the unit and player membership of their regions, and coordinate player coverage, etc. with other Regional Administrators. Regional Administrators would not be generals or commanders, but rather administrators. They will maintain limited authority over Companies and Independent Lances, and may organize a chain-of-command within their Regions to facilitate multi-unit operations, but they themselves may not hold a significant position within that chain-of-command. This chain-of-command will also be subject to approval by straight majority vote within each Region. This allows Companies and Independent Lances to maintain authority over their own units, while still benefiting from the coordination with other units. It also helps prevent issues of ego and such conflicts that can arise. RAs may also be given duties tracking things like what types of mechs are being fielded, where units are weak and strong, and making recommendations to unit commanders for what to field (i.e. fielding too many Light Mechs, not enough Assaults, etc.), but the details of such duties can be decided later, or by Region.


Regional Administrators would be elected by the membership of their Region. They would serve for terms not longer than six months, and for a consecutive period not longer than a year, unless approved by a super-majority vote within their Region, separate from the election, with each Region having the authority to set shorter terms and/or term limits. A Vote of No Confidence can also be called between terms to have a Regional Administrator removed from office, if they prove to be especially bad at the position or are found to be abusing the position, with a two-thirds supermajority vote within their Region being required to remove them. Company Commanders are not eligible for the position of Regional Administrator, both because of the excessive workload that would be involved in running both positions, and the conflict of interest that would be created.


A Deputy Regional Administrator may be appointed by the Regional Administrator (subject to approval by straight majority vote within their Region), should the workload of the position of RA prove too great for one person, or should the RA be unavailable or unable to perform their duties for a short time (i.e. going on vacation, etc.). The position of DRA can be for a short span, or for the duration of the RA's term, but always ends with each RA term. If the RA wishes to keep the DRA position, it must be renewed with each term. In the event that the RA becomes suddenly unavailable or unable to perform their duties for more than a reasonable span (i.e. major work change, leaving the game, or, heavens-forbid, death), the DRA will assume the position of RA until the end of the term, unless the RA calls an early election before leaving the position. The DRA can also call an early election instead of assuming the position (this is to prevent people who are fine filling a deputy role but do not have the desire and/or ability to perform the full RA role from getting stuck with the position). If necessary, multiple DRAs may be appointed, with one DRA being the Senior Deputy Regional Administrator. No more than one RA and one DRA or two DRAs may be appointed from any one unit. DRAs and SDRAs may not hold significant positions within a Region’s chain-of-command. Company Commanders are also not eligible for the position of DRA or SDRA.


RAs will form a Regional Council to coordinate between Regions, and to address FWL-spanning matters and issues, but most matters should be able to be handled on the Region level, or lower. There would be no established position above Regional Administrator, and there will be no senior RA or head of the Regional Council. It doesn't sound like the game will support such a position, and we won't really need one for organizational purposes outside of the game. That also avoids any issues of ego and power-craziness that can result from those positions. The Regional Council will have the authority to handle minor FWL-spanning matters, such as matters of administration, and coordination between Regions (the primary purpose of the RAs and the RC) on their own, but any major issues that must be decided will require a general vote from each Region, called the General Assembly. A straight majority of Regions with a straight majority of votes will be required for most issues (i.e. 3 regions each having a 51% majority in favor would be sufficient), with only a handful of specific matters requiring a supermajority vote from all Regions (such as constitutional amendments, adding or removing Regions, etc.). RAs and the RC will also have the authority to propose bills (for lack of a better term) to be voted upon by the Regional Council or the General Assembly.


Each Region will also elect a Regional Voting Commissioner for that Region, who, in concert with the RVCs from the other regions, will form a Voting Commission to handle any voting issues. RVCs will not be permitted to vote, nor hold any significant position within their Region’s chain-of-command, Company Commanders are not eligible to be RVCs, and all RVCs will be Region-independent (a RVC will be elected from a Region, but can handle or be approached with voting issues from any Region). The RVCs will work together as the Voting Commission to address any issues in voting and voting registration that may arise. It will be the responsibility of the RAs (and any DRAs they have appointed) to register Companies and Independent Lances, to maintain a database of players in registered Companies and Independent Lances, and to count the votes from the players in their Region. The purpose of the Voting Commission is to address problems that may arise in the counting of votes, registering of units, or other concerns of abuse, misuse, or neglect of the voting system. If issues do arise and the VC becomes involved, the VC can recommend or require that an RA appoint a Deputy(ies) to assist with their duties if problems arise and are found to stem from the RA being unable to keep up with the workload, and the VC can also call a Vote of No Confidence against a RA if the Commission finds that a RA is abusing the voting system (i.e. deliberately miscounting or misreporting votes, deliberately failing to register units for voting, etc.).


Other duties, positions and powers may be assigned or created through the Regional Council or General Assembly, as necessary, so long as they do not contradict the restrictions set forth in the constitution. Each Region may also assign or create their own duties, positions and powers, or their own Regional Constitution, or add their own restrictions to positions and authority, so long as they do not contradict the General Constitution, or other bylaws or policies established in bills passed through the Regional Council or General Assembly.

[Aeneas]

Think it sounds great, the only issue I see is having an individual based voting system. that would require an extremely involved population. why not handle it more like a republic? have each lance/company designate a representative to vote on the behalf of the whole lance/company. this allows for 1. greater participation because even if an individual or group miss the voting for some reason they will still have imput through their rep. 2.easier to manage the number of votes, instead of several hundred votes, there would be 1/3 of that or less. 3. easier organisation, as the rep would have a direct line from the RA to the lance, a line of comunication that is vital.
Other than that it sound close to perfect. I especially like the built in check of abuse of power. I will support this 100%, nice work guys

[Catamount]

Aeneas, on 22 July 2012 - 08:48 PM, said:

Think it sounds great, the only issue I see is having an individual based voting system. that would require an extremely involved population. why not handle it more like a republic? have each lance/company designate a representative to vote on the behalf of the whole lance/company. this allows for 1. greater participation because even if an individual or group miss the voting for some reason they will still have imput through their rep. 2.easier to manage the number of votes, instead of several hundred votes, there would be 1/3 of that or less. 3. easier organisation, as the rep would have a direct line from the RA to the lance, a line of comunication that is vital.
Other than that it sound close to perfect. I especially like the built in check of abuse of power. I will support this 100%, nice work guys

We have discussed this, and there are two problems that, if resolved, would make this the better solution:

1.) How to judge representation. Obviously it should be done on numbers, but does that mean number of total members in a company, number of active members in a company, number of running lances (another measure of active players) in a company, a flat lance vote, and what even qualifies as a lance, in terms of numbers, given that it's hard to have exactly a multiple of a four worth of players and we don't want people stacking more lances by splitting big lances up during election time?


2.) Coercion: It would be extremely easy for a unit commander or majority of a unit to offer an ultimatum for members/lances to vote for who they want, or face reprisal. Since we'll already have a voting commission to count votes, they'd have to handle that, but that would mean also expanding it to include a full-time fraud division.


It seems like these two problems would take a lot of bureaucracy to solve.



In all, the idea behind this proposal is to deal with all the changes from earlier BT iterations, or to put it more precisely, the one really big change: the amount of house functions taken from players and handled game-side. Everything from most or all of matchmaking, to recording and dealing with the results of wins and losses, will all be handled for us, requiring a far less vast set of jobs to make the house work.

That's why, ultimately, we feel that beyond the company level, only one real level of government is needed, and the person filling it isn't needed as a commander, but rather as a resource for coordination, who's primary job will be to take stock of region strength and player/mech/weapon makeup and give the information necessary to keep things running.


It should be noted, however, that we also agreed that RAs should be able to pass regulations, if necessary (but sparingly), regulations that would probably expire as soon as an RA's term was up. If, for instance, the majority of a region happens to be running a mech/weapon setup that just does not work, period, because, say, we're 70% Atlases, that in such an unlikely event that it arises, they should be able to demand that companies orchestrate changes to correct such issues, the two balances on that power being that

A.) Orders could only be given to the company level, and companies would decide on how to implement them

B.) Any regulation/order offered could be overridden by a simple company majority vote (>50%)

Edited by Catamount, 22 July 2012 - 09:07 PM.

[Ilithi Dragon]

Changing the voting unit to a Lance or a Company also adds further levels of complication to the system. Not only do you have to have a system for collecting Region-level votes, each Company or Independent Lance would have to have a system for collecting votes within their own units or organizations, and there would have to be a system for recording those votes, both to protect members of the units from their unit commanders and/or senior unit members abusing their positions of authority to force unit members to vote a certain way (or just outright ignore any unit member votes and cast the entire unit's vote however they see fit with no internal poll or election), and also to protect unit leaders from false accusations of abuse.


Having the voting unit be a straight player count has fewer levels of complexity, and fewer opportunities for abuse, you're still going to have to collect the same amount of player votes regardless (plus votes for Lances and Companies, so you're actually collecting more votes overall, just splitting the counting up among more people), and we can still encourage player organization into lances and companies by requiring them to register as members of a Company or Independent Lance in their region to be eligible to vote.

Edited by Ilithi Dragon, 22 July 2012 - 09:22 PM.

[The Justicar]

There are some things I like, and some things I don't.

First off, this system is extremely flexible. Example: if all we can do in-game is organize lances, we can still group them together out of game. Second, those that don't want to participate don't have to and the in-game effect would be very minimal. This is key, in my opinion.

What I don't like is I fear this will turn into Administration telling units when to play, or coercing lances to play a certain way. Another thing is I much prefer a system where a unit votes internally and then their vote counts as one regionally. This would streamline communication and be much easier to keep track of from an administrative standpoint. I don't see corruption from lance/company level being an issue so much so that it reduces the effectiveness of the system. If you don't trust your lance or company leaders to vote properly for you, hit up RA and/or transfer. This brings me to the last thing I'm not sold on: having ONE authority in each region.

Its late and I've been up for a long *** time so perhaps I'm not seeing the whole picture here, so I'd like to get in TS with you two ASAP so I can get a better understanding and start planning for tools on the as-yet unreleased "real" marik site that will facilitate this system or one like it.

<S>

P.S. our faction site is at over 1,600 unique visitors but only 89 registered users. I think the quality of the enjin site is sending poor impressions. More reason to move (and soon!)

Edited by The Justicar, 22 July 2012 - 09:28 PM.

[Aeneas]

I see where your coming from, especially about the coercion. But I do think their needs to some mid level form of organisation. Right now it sounds like we have the top echelon made up of RA's and vote counters, and then every body else. What if we implemented a method of voting that was simply more streamlined. Have the RS's fill their normal roles, but instead of having everyone vote on issues directly, there could be a mid level official who's job it is to organize, run and police the voting for maybe 3 or 4 lances. They would be directly elected from the trilance group by trilance majority vote per election. They would have a Set number of votes to fill, one per voter in their trilance unit.These middle officials would then turn around and relay the results of the trilance votes to the RAC. this will give the effects I stated previously, and since these middle officials would have no direct authority over the lances Coercion is negated as a real issue. Corruption would also be easilier to catch.

[Brenden]

I recomend you surrender to the awesomeness that bes.

[Ilithi Dragon]

@Justicar: Well, as Catamount, we discussed the pros and cons of player-based and lance/company-based voting units at great length, and there is certainly plenty left to discuss there. Our proposal isn't written in stone, and is open to modification, so if the larger group as a whole feels that lance/company-based voting units is better than a straight player-based voting unit, the system can easily be adapted to work with that. Personally, I think that whichever we do establish, we should incorporate clauses to allow the system to switch from one to the other if one or the other proves to be untenable.

It's also important to note how much we are stressing that Regional Administrators are administrators and not commanders. The job of the RA, and any Deputy RA(s) appointed, is not to command the Region, but rather to administer its unit and player membership, and keep track of how the Region is performing overall. They should have limited authority to direct Companies and Independent Lances for the purposes of organizing coverage of the Region's time period, coordinating with other Regions, coordinating large offensives/defensives, and improving Region performance in situations where the Region faces a severe imbalance in mech choice/loadout/etc., but that authority is expressly limited to primarily an administrative role; RAs will have no direct control over Companies or Independent Lances, nor will they have any significant position in any chain-of-command established within their Region, outside of their base administrative role. Companies and Lances can also choose to override the 'orders' of their RA through a straight majority vote within their unit.

I will be heading for bed soon, and Catamount should already be in bed, but I'll be on most of the day tomorrow. I can't remember if Catamount works tomorrow or not (he had either Monday or Tuesday off, not sure which off-hand), so he'll either be around most of the day, or late afternoon/evening, so we can definitely get a discussion going then. It would be nice if we could get some more people involved in the discussion, too. I've been chatting it up with a few other Marik guys, so I'll see if I can drag them in for a discussion.


@Aeneas: The problem is that adding additional layers to the system inherently increases its complexity. That increased complexity may or may not improve the functionality of the system. There is plenty of room for discussion there, and Catamount and I are not insisting that a straight player vote is the only way to go. Organizing Companies and Independent Lances into larger Battalions with a Battalion Commander/Administrator, who oversees the member Companies and Independent Lances and then reports to the Regional Administrator could be one potential way of reducing the need for a straight general vote on every issue, which would quickly become unwieldy if a General Assembly vote was required on a frequent basis, but there are problems with that that would need to be resolved (like how to fit organized Companies and Independent Lances into Battalions).


Regardless of what voting system we ultimately decide to implement, the decision to implement it should be given to a straight up general player vote, possibly with a supermajority required for ratification.

[Terbius]

I just want to announce that I am, in fact, the leader of House Marik. Any conversation questioning the leadership structure of my house, or which implies that I am not the leader, is hereby declared Treason, and will be delt with by me Team-Killing you.

[Ito Ogami]

Terbius, on 28 July 2012 - 11:24 PM, said:

I just want to announce that I am, in fact, the leader of House Marik. Any conversation questioning the leadership structure of my house, or which implies that I am not the leader, is hereby declared Treason, and will be delt with by me Team-Killing you.

Howdy,


Thank you for the chuckle this fine day.

[heybats]

Ilithi and Catamount, I feel your proposal can provide a good launch point for discussion, but is (perhaps intentionally) very ambiguous. I feel multiple public, scheduleddiscussions would be necessary to move forward from this point. Everyone who is interested in organizing our house should have a voice.

[Ilithi Dragon]

Yes, our framework is intentionally loose and flexible. It's not meant to be a strict paradigm of leadership, it's meant to be a system of tools to facilitate players and player companies/guilds communicating and coordinating together, pooling combat information to facilitate figuring out what works and what doesn't work, where we're strong and weak, etc., and most importantly, to be a system that allows the organized community as a whole to fairly make decisions on matters that affect them, either on a smaller, 'local' level, or on a larger level that affects the entire organized body.


And yes, we definitely favor multiple public discussion on the matter. Our proposal is just that: a proposal. We would like to see something like this implemented to get a truly organized House Marik (and, of course, any players or companies/guilds that don't wish to participate have absolutely no requirement to, they could still be House Marik without participating), but we don't have any illusions that we'll automatically come up with the best ways and ideas of implementing that all on our own, and deciding whether or not to implement this at all is entirely a greater House Marik decision.

[Stingr4y]

Great feedback here. I do like the mature way we are going about this, and not making this a barn-burner argument. I have seen great guilds fall from such in-house ******* contests. Please embrace the fact that we have gone this far without name calling and mud-slinging.

I do want to point out that even though we DO need to be organized, it doesn't have to happen tomorrow. I guarantee you that what ever democratic and hierarchy system we set up NOW, will not be the way it will be several months from now. We have to roll with the punches, we have to realize that somethings will NOT go the way YOU in particular would want it, but in the end, we can make it work, AS LONG AS WE ARE FLEXIBLE AND FORGIVING!!!!

Do not panic if we cannot get things organized by release date. In fact, we might have to see how the meta-game play will be before FWL will come up with a brilliant system of organization.

I know this sounds like a vague post, and even though I don't post daily, I keep up with everybody. I just wanted to bring to the surface of a positive hope as long as we don't get at eachother's necks.

I signed up to the Marik's enjin site several weeks ago, and it is a very clean and organized site with less trolling. I am eager to help move this house along internally as well as on the battlefield. It isn't an obligation, but it does help bring in fellow mechwarriors who want to go one level deeper into our fine house. I work full time as well as holding together a new marital status, so I cannot commit to 40+ hours a week here, but I do get my time in, so TS is an option for personal talks to get this going.

I see lots of regional reps here, but are there any central standard time players like me out there?

[BelRager]

You ask for Central, I give you Central time. Though, my shift hours are a bit odd right now.
Play Time:
Typically 8PM-12AM M-Th. 8PM Fri-sometime Sunday on most weekends. All times are Central.
Play Type (based on previous experience)
I think I would prefer Heavy long range (Missile boats or PPC towers are good) or Very Light and agile Mechs (scouting/harassment). Can do some close range scrapping, with mediums and assaults, though I do not prefer that play style.
And what I'm willing to do:
If any can use me, fine, I'm flexible enough to do most jobs discussed in the Pilot Roles. If not, fine, I'm sure games will likely find themselves easy enough on release, so I can loan myself out just as easily. I wouldn't mind a core group of players to run with, and already know of one player that I will be playing with for a few hours a week.
Edit: Removed HTML tags that got in there mysteriously.

Edited by BelRager, 30 July 2012 - 03:05 PM.

[Ilithi Dragon]

Stingr4y, you're describing a lot of what Catamount and I wanted to build into the system. Key among the features of the system we have been piecing together is flexibility and adaptability. A rigid system won't be able to stand very well to community changes and game changes, and we have to have a system that can adapt, both to fit best with the game, and to meet the needs and desires of the community it servers.

That's why we haven't really gone into the details of internal organization and military command structure, because we don't know what will be needed or will work best with the game, and the community. We also felt that that should largely be left up to each region, though we might want to go with standardized frameworks later on to facilitate trans-regional operations. Either way, that's not necessary to determine now. The core of what Catamount and I wanted to establish was a basic system of organization that facilitates players and companies/guilds finding and communicating with each other, and joining existing groups or forming their own, and to give a system of tools for the larger organized community to make community decisions.

Everything else we can figure out later, but I think we should strive to get a solid system of tools to help players and units find each other, and for the organized community to make group decisions as soon as we can.

Moose13, the guy paying for our Marik TS server, has suggested a series of a sort of 'town hall' meetings in a privately-hosted TS server, so we can get around the player cap you get with paid-for TS servers. Everyone would be muted except for a moderator or two, who would grant speaking powers to whomever had 'the floor' or whatever you want to call it. I think this is a great idea, and that we should start organizing such a meeting soon. It shouldn't be the only one, getting a system like this set up will take time and probably multiple meetings, and we'll also want to have a log of some sort posted here and on our own Marik site for anyone who wasn't able to make the meeting to know what went on, and to chip in their own thoughts via forum post.

After we get the basic system hammered out, we can then put it to the general vote for ratification. I'm not sure if we'll want a poll here or just a thread linking to the poll on our own Marik site, so we can avoid non-Marik guys casting votes.

[Stingr4y]

Sounds like a plan. I can attend the meetings if it is only just for support of a few ideas or two.

I will have to forewarn our organization, we can probably have a good solid structure in a few months.......BUT, in about 8 months, the clan invasion will come, and there will be defectors going to want to be True Bloods, and we will lose players, lances and possibly one or two in our own command structure. I for one will stay loyal, but we cannot force players to stay where they are, otherwise; you will increase the chances of having "guild" like obligations that has made other MMO games NOT like games anymore.

Our main focus in the FWL military is to keep this organization "fun" to be in.

[KamikazeRMA]

Ok after skimming this thread, it some what answered my questions that I have about the current state of the chain of command for The Glorious House Marik I know that the community as we remember it is but a shadow of itself. Thank GOD we do have old blood still lingering in our vains. We can do this, and it will be done. I cant wait to get in there with you guys.....