VOTE #23

[korexus]

Remember that we are currently in a one person one vote setup, so everyone who said no to a WSC was agreeing with that idea. At some point in the future, we will have too many people to make this viable, the question is: have we reached that point (if so, introduce a council and restrict the posting rights to forum #2) or are we small enough to let everyone have an equal say. (Allow everyone full access to both forums.)

This is, I think, the advantage of having a week or so discussion before opening a poll. - It allows for everyone to be clear about what they are actually voting for. Then we can make a poll with every option which someone suggested.

Chris.

[Vortan]

Vortan <-------------- goes to sleep. Wake me when you finally make your minds up. This is ALMOST as stimulating as watching paint dry ... ALMOST!

You know for a moment I thought some sort of agreement had been reached and then I read kor's post and see it starting over.

Do what Trewqh said first for goodness sake. A 'YES or NO' vote, nothing else, no confusion, no late additions. Just 'Should the WSC be reactivated now?' option 1 = YES, option 2 = NO. Its EASY!

Vortan <---------- now on knees praying that someone makes it all end.

[Celerian]

Far be it from me to try and sway your decisions one way or another, but wouldn't it make sense to just allow the most loyal and active members garner access to this WSC? As I gather, this group is responsible for approving major changes to how WoK is run. In this case, I think you should open your doors to a core group, allowing a max of 4 players from each faction to represent. This max number may be lower for now, and can always allow for expansion from the total number of factions without making the WSC too cumbersome.

Lastly, without overstepping my boundaries here, try and see the WSC as a governmental body, akin to the House of Lords/Commons or the Senate/House of Reps. I personally feel that a driving force behind WoK is probably necessary, and its better to have this established before too many people begin to take notice and you have too many players to control. As it stands now, one person cannot possibly manage every detail and could probably use the help.

[Vortan]

@ Celerian

Just look about 8 topics down on General discussions and you will find a thread entitled return of the WSC. On page 1 of that one we did the republic bit. We are now on to week sixty-seven squillion of this debate (well it feels like it) and as you can probably figure for yourself it doesn't seem to be going anywhere fast.

@ Sal, kor, Trewqh etc, etc, etc.

PERHAPS it is time to say ENOUGH?

Yes or No? Simple. Think, we could all spend our time better doing ... err ... I know! ... Lets actually play the game instead of talking about it!

[korexus]

Vortan, my suggestion was a Yes or No question. I was just disguising it so that the dissenters wouldn't notice.

Celerian, Who the driving force is and who makes the decisions do not have to be the same person. In fact, getting caught up in these discussions leaves less time for me to do little things like finish off EWoK and do Han's countless Duel updates...


Chris.

[Hryllantre]

When has politics ever been a simple Yes or No answer If only life we're so simple.

We have forums running at the moment where everyone has an equal say. We do not need a higher body (WSC) to conduct business as our numbers are too small. Too many (and yet too few) players would be excluded. Why should I now how to miss out on having a say for the running of this game and yet I do not agree with the WSC...

How many players who don't agree with the WSC system have been nominated to be a part of it, already our diplomatic system of voting has come unstuck... Rethink please... I already feel excluded by even the mention of it... I'm a merc and where was I asked who should represent them... Some will say whats the big deal as over time we've all contributed in one way or the other. There's even talk of a second forum for WSC, where will the exclusion end... Total rubbish for a community so small...

Edited because I overstepped my mark by saying I'd leave - I won't - I love this game too much...

Hryllantre disappears to take his daily dose of sad pills

[TBert]

Alright, emotions running hot again.

I don't think anybody here is trying to bring back the WSC to exclude anybody, to consolidate power, to have power themselves, to eliminate 'the little guy's opinion', or to single-handedly change WOK.

The most important reason I see to either bring back the WSC OR create a SET OF RULES for our ridiculously long-winded forum sessions, is to eliminate the exact problem we're having right now.

We're having a months-long argument about how to avoid months-long arguments. The best way to avoid these month-long arguments is to create a comprehensive set of rules, be that a WSC or an open forum. The open forum WOULD have to have rules, and although some of you seem to be caustic to any idea of regulating our forum chaos, it would be necessary to avoid exactly what's happening now.

I'll bring back my idea from a few weeks ago, which is completely transparent, everyone can participate, but there will be rules to keep the discussion from being excessive, and some kind of veto power requiring a near-unanimous agreement from the devs and vets.

Why not make a new forum and call it 'Wok Council'. Every time there's a proposal for anything, the person goes to the WOK Council forum, and makes a thread entitled "Proposal #XX : Blah Blah." That topic is then discussed, with special effort to keeping the thread on-topic, until the discussion peters down. Discussion could be a minimum of a week with a maximum of 2 weeks or a month. An X-Game could be run, with the proposal implemented, if it is deemed necessary by the people in the thread. After that, another thread is created entitled "Vote for Proposal #XX." The vote has to be a clear concise proposal, not several options. A week is given for votes, and then the proposal either passes or fails by a 2/3 majority. If the proposal does not pass, it can still be discussed, but cannot be voted on again for 3 months.

That way everything is transparent, everyone can participate in the discussion and vote, but there is still a need for consensus. There are still issues that Duke brought up that would have to be solved (a big crowd of new people joining with the hostile intent of changing and messing up the game, the problem of one person registering multiple accounts) but those can be remedied with clauses. If there's a way to see who actually voted, we can discount the players who are known to be just created. And there can be some kind of veto power for the vets and developers, but it would have to have limitations and require a near-unanimous vote, to stop the 'large group of newbs with hostile intent.' I'm bolding the hostile intent to make it clear that I'm not talking about anybody that's currently playing or participating in this discussion.

[Brykovian]

I would support Tbert's approach. It makes sense. (Which makes it difficult to believe this is the same Tbert that used to play here when he was in high school. )

-Bryk

[Calidus]

I would support Tbert's approach. It makes sense. (Which makes it difficult to believe this is the same Tbert that used to play here when he was in high school. )

-Bryk

dangnabbit it Bryk, now you are going to have him calling all of us OLD again! Way to go! Now, where'd I leave that cane?

[korexus]

I would support Tbert's approach. It makes sense. (Which makes it difficult to believe this is the same Tbert that used to play here when he was in high school. )

-Bryk

That makes 3. I'll set it up.


Chris.

[korexus]

I've set this up. For anyone thinking that it feels like a "done deal" don't worry. We're going to vote on this again, this time with the discussion before the vote (that way no one will want to change their mind half way through). It's easy enough to remove the forums again if need be.

I've also created a post on the "Kaomarian Constitution" in which we can record all the decisions of the community.


Chris.

[Saladin]

Good...i like getting my way in the end one way or the other.

But could somebody please point out at least one difference between option 1 as proposed in this vote and Tbert's proposal?

That's why i like Tbert so much...he agrees with me.

[korexus]

Option 1 was part of a voting system which people felt unfair as it didn't allow all the options. Also everyone was confused by your set up as the vote happened before the discussion.

There's no difference between TBert's set up and option 4 either, except a little bit of formality. I tried to point that out earlier, but you obviously weren't listening...


Chris.

[trewqh]

But could somebody please point out at least one difference between option 1 as proposed in this vote and Tbert's proposal?

2/3 majority requirement and testing changes in X-games.

Always happy to help.