VOTE #23

Post by **korexus** » Wed Jul 04, 2007 3:25 pm

Saladin wrote:
korexus wrote:New players should also know that the reason the WSC stopped is because people started ignoring it.
Now that part simply isn't true. The community slowly died when a large group of players (over time) (temporarily) lost interest in the game. With no community and therefore nobody on the WSC no votes or discussions were held.

Erm, No.

The last times the WSC were active were June 2004, July 2004 and May 2005. I then tried to revive it in December 2005, *then* the community started to drift away. (Nothing but spam on the WSC list for 2006 and 2007). The community was still nice an active in 2004, so I think it's safe to say that the WSC went first...

Does anyone mind if I make the WSC archive public?

to be honest i couldn't and still can't imagine anybody being against giving the actual community a vote in how things are done instead of just the lucky few.

How can anybody ever be against a democratic way of making decisions.

But the people already have a say. That's what these forums are for. I'm not against democracy, "but I was there" when the WSC failed (either bad 'nam movie or LOTR, take your pick) and don't think it's the solution.

As for your question: people can be against democracy because it's not necessarily the best way of doing something. I am glad that, in Britain, the banks, the schools and the hospitals (to take three examples) are
not run on the principals of democracy because I know that a lot of people involved with them do not know, understand or in quite a few cases care what is going on. I would far rather that a few people with the skill set to deal with an problems were making the decisions. Of course, we do pretend to run them by democracy, maybe that's the solution here...

korexus.

Vortan · Post by **Vortan** » Wed Jul 04, 2007 5:13 pm

I should like to support korexus's statement and add only this. That as the community is now 25+ active the fact that only half voted at all should be signal enough that the WSC is not needed at present. To enforce it because 5 people (was it 5 ? - cant be bothered to go back a page) want it. Thats 20%. If only 20% voted for your government but they got a majority government as a result you would not be happy if you didn't support them.

This topic is in danger of becoming damaging and devicive and I therefore propose this discussion is ended at the earliest opportunity. As I said in a previous post give it several months and reassess. Please.

Saladin · Post by **Saladin** » Wed Jul 04, 2007 5:34 pm

Vortan wrote:I should like to support korexus's statement and add only this. That as the community is now 25+ active the fact that only half voted at all should be signal enough that the WSC is not needed at present. To enforce it because 5 people (was it 5 ? - cant be bothered to go back a page) want it. Thats 20%. If only 20% voted for your government but they got a majority government as a result you would not be happy if you didn't support them.

Erm Vortan that's exactly the way US and UK politics work, with at best only 25% of the people voting for the winning party.

I agree though that is a bad thing and in case of Kaomaris it means that it's a shame that 10 or so people decided not to vote.

I also agree with Korexus that it would be best if it takes 2/3 of the voters voting for something in order for it to be excepted. That way you have a much broader support base.

Saladin · Post by **Saladin** » Wed Jul 04, 2007 5:35 pm

you can also say that only 5 people wanted to disband the WSC so should it be disbanded because 20 percent wants it to be?

Vortan · Post by **Vortan** » Wed Jul 04, 2007 5:47 pm

I appreciate your point BUT I personally would see the none voters as having only 3 options, not liked any and as a result didn,t bother to vote or continue to read the debate. If this is the case they would not be aware the 4th option had been added.

I think a simple should we have a WSC at all poll would have been better in the first instance. If it has been inactive for over 2 years it is dead presently - no if's or but's.

This would be your first and most viable option. If the majority said YES then you could hold an in what form once people had agreed it being here.

Not unreasonable. Hope you can see that.

Post by **Hannibal** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 12:04 am

*IF* there is a new WSC. And *IF* we want to promote and encourage clans, as a great community thing and helping new players. Then I don't see why mercenaries should have any seats at all. If they want a say, let them play ball, join a clan, contribute and help a clan. Get a seat that way. If they don't want to contribute to our clan culture, then they can be outsiders, no problem. No vote. Discuss.

Post by **Hannibal** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 12:44 am

Saladin wrote:A total of 13 players have voted.

Option 1 = 0 votes

Option 2 = 2 votes

Option 3 = 6 votes

Option 4 = 5 votes

So option 3 gets the most votes:
Code: Select all
- Two representatives from every clan including the mercenaries. 

- All active members of the development team. 

- Plus the WSC has the right to nominate other players to join the WSC, which have to be accepted with a 2/3 vote though. 
So the next step is for each of the clans (plus the mercenaries) to appoint two representatives for the WSC.

Hang about. Vote-rigging? I looked at the posts above, just to check. I see Sal, Cal, TheDragon and Aussie Gaz voting for #3 (before option #4 was a possibility), and then Lord Fredo. That makes 5.

Who is the sixth vote for #3 that gives it a 6/5 win over option #4 ??? Sal, you threw in an extra vote for your favourite, hoping no-one would notice?

H

Brykovian · Post by **Brykovian** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 4:32 am

First, I didn't vote because I'm a go-with-the-flow sort ... though I don't see the need for the formal WSC right now -- haven't really seen the hordes of "I always make suggestions and no one listens to me" posts, so I think things are working fine. As soon as those posts start, then we formalize.

Second, I'm not on the "dev team" until I actually deliver a playable game. I'm a designer first, and a passable VB coder -- but not much of a php coder ... so this will take a while for me to sort out. Especially since my first priority is trying to get a new job in RL, plus a couple of non-game side projects that I'm working on.

So, if you plan to have some sort of "dev team" represented on any WSC-ish type thingy ... then I should not, currently, be part of that. I would guess that I may have some chance of representing the Scholars, however (I'm sure korexus will report that once we've discussed it in our forums).

So, um, yeah. Have fun with the debate and stuff.

-Bryk

Post by **korexus** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:33 am

Han: Dragonette. Let's at least keep the mudslinging accurate, folks.

Chris.

TheDragon · Post by **TheDragon** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 6:40 am

I want to change my mind and vote for option 4 This choice was not there when I voted last time. What's wrong with people voicing their opinion and everyone having a healthy debate to thrash things out.

Post by **trewqh** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 7:18 am

korexus wrote:Han: Dragonette. Let's at least keep the mudslinging accurate, folks.

You're right! I missed her vote too when checking the first count Sal did.

Anyway, TheDragon changed her mind. I wonder what Sal will say. Will he insist on the deadline?

Here's how it looks now:

Code: Select all

opt 1         0
opt 2	      2 = Yon, Duke
opt 3	      5 = Sal, Cal, Dragonette, Aussie Gaz, Lord Fredo
opt 4	      5 = Vortan, TheDragon, Han, Hryll, korexus
Tbert's opt   1 = Tbert

players who expressed support for option 4 without voting: trewqh, Egbert, Mullog, Brykovian

The way I see it it's 9 to 8 when it comes to how many players want to bring back the WSC and how many don't.

Sal?

Post by **Hannibal** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 8:51 am

Dragonette wrote:option 3[/size] - would i be a member as i am doing the new score system. Which will take up my time and i will have to look around for the results if people dont tell me about them??

Dragonette

Good grief, so she did. That little red squiggle. I read hers as just asking whether she would be on it, with a mistaken size-instruction on the front. A thousand apologies, Saladin. And, BTW, I hope you know that I was teasing about the "vote-rigging?" I never thought for a moment that you'd have done it deliberately. I thought you must have mistakenly counted Vortan on both options after he changed his vote. Sorry about that.

H

Saladin · Post by **Saladin** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 9:05 am

TheDragon wrote:I want to change my mind and vote for option 4 This choice was not there when I voted last time. What's wrong with people voicing their opinion and everyone having a healthy debate to thrash things out.

Ok, this is the second or third player who said this. And that shows that for some reason they think that the WSC means that there won't be any posibility for discussion when in fact nothing concerning any discussions will change!

All discussions with anybody who wants to join in will be public and on this forum.

The only thing that the WSC does is that after all the discussions have concluded an actual vote will be had so that a decision can be made based on what the community as a whole wants instead of it being left to one or two people to come up with a decision.

I hope this clarifies it a bit more for TheDragon and Hryllantre.

Saladin · Post by **Saladin** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 9:22 am

Ok, all this 'discussion' is the main reason why there should be a simple vote after every discussion because as with any discussion they ones who yell the loudest tend to get their way. And believe me i know as i tend to yell quite loud.

That's what votes are for to give everybody an equal voice in things and sensible people who prefer not to get involved in nasty discussions like this get a chance to voice there opinion without having to start getting involved in the nasty discussion.

Anyway, the WSC is just a means to a goal, it's not a goal in itself. If somebody can come up with another way of giving everybody an equal voice/vote in things than i'm cool with whatever you come up with.

Post by **trewqh** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 9:33 am

If we define the goal as: keeping the community alive and thriving then 'giving everybody an equal voice/vote in things' is a means not a goal.

Another (better) way to achieve the goal I defined is to keep things the way they are, after all the community is alive and thiriving.

And, please, don't repeat the ridiculous argument that nothing is getting done the way things are now... just because hardly anyone shared your view on changing the sabotage missile spy option.

Don't try to break something that is working just because you're 'tired of the dev team calling all the shots'. (Pardon me if I misquote.)

Post by **korexus** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 10:29 am

Ok, I have a suggestion.

Firstly, I create a new forum for any discussions like this to be had on. That way, anyone with a heart condition or who is just here for the game can ignore that forum.

Secondly, I create another forum, in which votes can be started for any thread that was in the first forum.

Either, both or none of these forums can be 'private' and within that option there are two further options, Either only members can view or post (like the clan forums) or everyone can view, but only members can post.

If we want a WSC (and I have no issue with having something along these lines, just the specifics) I would suggest the first forum is open to all, the second is visible to all but only WSC members can post/vote on it.

I think this is a compromise between TBert's suggestion (which I like), the idea of bringing back the WSC and keeping everything as it is.

Thoughts?

Chris.

Saladin · Post by **Saladin** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 10:35 am

Perfect suggestion Chris. I fully agree with it.

Post by **trewqh** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 10:41 am

And what do we do next?

Start over with a simple yes or no question about reviving the WSC?

Or continue the discussion we're having in this thread?

Just asking.

Post by **korexus** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 10:53 am

Simple steps. Less chance for bloodshed that way.

The first question I would ask would be: "Should we have a one member/ one vote system or should a smaller selection of the community make the decisions"

If we go for the smaller section, then we can go through the democracy/republic/dictatorship options.

Chris.

Saladin · Post by **Saladin** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 10:59 am

Well although i personally am for a one member one vote setup it seems that no one else is as it got 0 votes in this vote, so maybe we could skip this option in order to save some time.