Zucceta
Administrator
PL: 379,083
Oozaru(x10) MSSj(x15) S.Ooz(x22) SSj2(25x)
Zeni: 2290
Tag: @admin
OOC Name: therevolution
Posts: 2,309
|
Post by Zucceta on Jan 20, 2015 23:44:29 GMT
I understand that the process was an experiment in taking the 'staff input' out of the equation and replacing it with 'entire forum input', which was a totally worthy experiment. However, in actuality, I do not believe this entirely the case; if every staff member were to suddenly perish from Captain Trips, other members do not have the information necessary to continue stuff such as grading.
And, if I'm honest, I don't think a dedicated team of staff members should be reduced to the level of maid. Once you've put in time (in my case about 7 years of adminning on dedicated Dragon Ball roleplay forums, often with similar systems to this), gained experience and a feel for how forums should be run, you should have a greater amount of input than, say, a newer player.
Resurrection did blow up, though it could have survived; I decided to end that storyline on my end and reboot the site based some time in the future, which was perhaps a mistake - I should have just made Souls straight away, or left it some months. The staff team blew up due to one manipulative personality which resulted in the reduction of at least three major characters and two of the top staff.
A lot of the suggestions I've read are bafflingly unbalanced. It wouldn't matter so much if Souls had been built from the ground-up by the entire community we have here, but it wasn't. It is essentially an updated, modifed, iterated-on version of Resurrection, a site whose structure and mechanics were almost 100% built by myself. There was a baseline the previous admin, Maxxie, had created, one that we had collaborated on about five years ago, but he left about as soon as he made me an admin. So, I can't deny, I do feel some dismay with some of the suggestions, and how long it takes for good suggestions to be implemented.
Many of the suggestions are great, but they clash with systems currently in place. If the site had been built from the ground up, with everyone here, then while it'd take a while I'm sure everyone's input would be appreciated. But it wasn't.
A roleplay forum is quite like an author's work. Yes, in this case, I modified a version of an existing fictional work. But I feel that denying ideas that, for whatever reason, do not work in our game system, or game universe, due to either clashing with our current system, being unreasonably skewed in one race's favour, or for simply being silly, is not a member of staff being an unfair 'king'.
|
|
|
Post by President Bao on Jan 24, 2015 15:14:34 GMT
Indeed, but that is cause things haven't been fully documented and set up yet . Just like in 'real world' projects(pfft, implying this isn't a real project XD), documentation is super important yet sometimes gets skipped when the pressure is on. We need to work down this administrative debt(so I mean if you guys find yourself with additional free time I can start assigning tasks for documentation ). ---- You are absolutely correct that with more experience comes better understanding, but I disagree that should put someone 'above' others just by virtue of being them . It's certainly an argument you can put forward in your favour, but our method is largely scientific in practice - in that a submission is built based on evidence, not based on just who said it. You have to present your case and justify why it is the best option, not just say 'it is cause I say so and so this is what we are doing'. It is open to public scrutiny, and to alternative submissions. It's actually good for both the end product and you as a designer to be questioned and to have to justify your assertions, to be answerable. It makes you self-reflect and analyse, and with many minds coming together people can bring new angles or highlight elements you never even considered at first. It will emerge as a stronger better product. ---- As for Res' end - eh, what happened happened, we'd be lying to ourselves if we said that simply setting back up earlier would have returned things to how they were. Cheater or not, Touketgurenshu was a huge aspect of the site. Who knows, maybe it would have simmered on, but I think you yourself(along with everyone else who left to quit RP altogether) had grown weary by that stage, it's why you left this place too (other than it being dead at the time XD)... and that's totally understandable for both you and many other members there. One thing that I think we do need to internally achknowledge(since Res has come up a decent amount as of late) is that this isn't Resurrection, and in truth it shouldn't ever be. It used resurrection as a basis, in the same way resurrection used previous wod generations as a basis(And I've seen some of the amusing monstrosities of the long forgotten past ). and funnily enough, in the same way Maxxi passed the mantle on and left you in charge, you passed the mantle on and left me in charge. It was a nightmare to keep alive, it went into cardiac arrest several times, it was an unending uphill slog - but Myself and Pieter persevered, through grit and determination we pulled this place from very real 'it's over, the place is dead' into the now thriving community before you. It's got a few bumps, but despite the odds we pulled through, I pulled through, and I created "a site (I) would want to roleplay on." One where everyone freely contributes, everyone is valued equally. It is the single greatest aspect of this place, and I genuinely do not want that to be taken back away, not after everything I put into here to achieve that. ---- And yes, some suggestions are unbalance, it's our job as a community to refine them into something workable. Convince people of the demerits, explain and teach them of the insights you have gained and bring them on board as an equal. As I've mentioned, inspiration can come from anywhere, just because someone suggests something which is initially unworkable does not mean it is a bad idea. From that seed, more ideas spawn, solutions develop, it may end up being something entirely different from what it 'started as', but would never have happened if not for someone giving their input. By blocking the community's authority, it makes them into the 'outsider' again. Well intentioned or not, it's a massive leap backwards in what this place represents and (as my previous response was leaning towards) isn't a real solution to the issues brought up in the original post IMO. (side note - This is a rather critical topic, so I'd definitely like to take it at a bit slower pace if that's okay with you. Don't want to have to be stressing over it while we have so much already going on) --- (5)
|
|
Zucceta
Administrator
PL: 379,083
Oozaru(x10) MSSj(x15) S.Ooz(x22) SSj2(25x)
Zeni: 2290
Tag: @admin
OOC Name: therevolution
Posts: 2,309
|
Post by Zucceta on Apr 8, 2015 11:12:12 GMT
I no longer fully support this idea, but I still think it should be discussed, as I am still somewhat ill at ease with the way the forum is currently run.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2015 11:47:05 GMT
I no longer fully support this idea, but I still think it should be discussed, as I am still somewhat ill at ease with the way the forum is currently run. I'm sorry if I sound rude, it's not my intention it's just the way I sometimes type or come off, but can you elaborate on why you aren't at ease? I'm just confused at why you don't support the idea but still want it to be discussed. I just want to know before I start to also discuss it xD
|
|
Zucceta
Administrator
PL: 379,083
Oozaru(x10) MSSj(x15) S.Ooz(x22) SSj2(25x)
Zeni: 2290
Tag: @admin
OOC Name: therevolution
Posts: 2,309
|
Post by Zucceta on Apr 8, 2015 14:02:39 GMT
I do support the idea, as I believe that a) It's a more efficient system, and b) It allows for vetoes on some of the more ridiculous suggestions that risk being put through because people just tick 'yes' in a poll.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2015 14:14:48 GMT
I do support the idea, as I believe that a) It's a more efficient system, and b) It allows for vetoes on some of the more ridiculous suggestions that risk being put through because people just tick 'yes' in a poll. Ah well in that case I agree with everything you've said so far, I was hoping you hadn't changed your mind which is why I had to ask you to elaborate. There's not much I can really say that wouldn't be repeating what you've said so far but I definitely agree with you.
|
|
|
Post by Pah'mazhan on Apr 8, 2015 14:37:46 GMT
Seeing firsthand how Wod:Resurrection worked, especially when staff was concerned, there was a lot less member influence on what happened. I remember at one point we planned for artificial sagas to keep members entertained. What we have now is flawed, yes. I think if we brought back the admin system from Resurrection but with the member input, things would get worked on faster and with a higher success rate.
Example proposal: During the month members discuss any grievances or suggestions they have and consolidate it into 5 of the most important for the month. At the end of this month, it's submitted to the admins where they look at each one critically and take into account all of the conversation that went into each point. Then the admins post 5 times, discussing the decisions for each point and how they came to that conclusion.
Half-baked, I know (It's early for me), but it's a start, I think.
|
|
Vi-Poi
Administrator
Premier of Earth
PL: 434,410
Soul(x40P), Overdrive(x43)
Zeni: 1,247
Tag: @vipoi
Posts: 2,833
|
Post by Vi-Poi on Apr 9, 2015 22:04:41 GMT
I really like certain aspects of the democracy, and I love that a player can generate an idea that gets implemented just as easily as a staff member can. There are a few major problems with the freeform style of the democracy, which I think need to be addressed. Perhaps there is a third way, where checks and balances can be instituted upon the democracy and eliminate the formlessness of it.
For instance, some of the polls generated have exhibited very heavy bias, that have influenced the voting. Polls that show obvious signs of bias, strawmanning, wagging the dog, etc. need to have some sort of rigid mechanism that dismisses them out of hand.
Historically, direct democracies (like Athens, and ours) have been imperiled by low-information voters, and voters who align themselves with a particular vote item not because they have a stake or a keen interest, but because it is advocated for by a particular person they like or dislike. We have also seen this happen on Souls, where it was in the past voted that Koramund be allowed to absorb a self-detonated and obliterated Orache, but the exact opposite ruling was voted in the case of Reikiko absorbing Athren. The exact same mechanic and concept was brought before the voting population -- absorbing an 'obliterated' -- and yet two different vote outcomes were made.
It was denied because it was a post-facto vote, but this is extremely dangerous for the site, because it can turn all questions about mechanics into popularity contests.
I think there needs to be a few rules set in stone to safeguard the vigor and fairness of the democracy, and also make it much more efficient:
1. Discussions must always take place prior to voting. Discussions are to last no shorter than three days, and no longer than 1 week.
2. By the three days, if there is no new idea being discussed, or by the hard limit of 1 week, a 24 hour vote to end debate is cast. Should the vote to end debate succeed, the vote is formed and posted with all ideas brought forward presented in the vote item pool. Should the vote to end debate fail, the discussion will be extended 3 days, and then move to vote automatically.
3. Voting lasts 72 hours. Upon vote closure, the results are to be implemented immediately.
4. No post-facto implementation of any kind allowed.
5. Discussions and debates must follow the site rules of conduct, and also be presented in a fair and unbiased manner. Ideally, pros and cons of a change are always weighed in the initial post. Voting threads must include in quotes the ideas being voted upon.
6. All mechanics that have already been established require a 2/3 voting majority threshold to overturn or change. Binary changes on previously ruled upon questions (such as yes/no obliteration absorption, yes/no ooc item destruction, etc.) are permanent to avoid popular player biases.
7. Admins hold veto powers over all core mechanical changes. This veto works only against a change to an established ruling, and not an addition, nor feature changes such as planets, species, etc. These vetoes may be overridden by a simple majority in a staff vote, or by a majority of admins.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2015 0:51:16 GMT
I agree with this, honestly. I do like the democracy aspect, but there needs to be a way to make sure it does not become, as Vipoi put it, a popularity contest. Mods exist for a variety of reasons, but one of the big ones is to enforce rules and help a site run. If the player base can't trust mods to make some of these decisions, then you have a bigger problem. As far as I've seen, the mods here are pretty fair and don't play overt favorites. That's not true for a LOT of places.
|
|