|
Post by Hyoza on May 27, 2015 21:19:54 GMT
Slimming down the sheer number of people involved in the implementation process has an undeniable effect on the speed with which changes are made. If you can't see how that would be the case, then I think you may have a faulty logic circuit And once again, members are not being stripped of their power - we're simply advocating allowing staff (who once again undeniably have greater site knowledge than most members) to move ahead with stuff on their own, rather than waiting on however many other people decide to get involved.
|
|
Mayze
Moderator
PL: 250,469
Super Saiyan(x12) MSSJ(x15)
Zeni: 849
Shoki: 2,965
Tag: @gagelange10
OOC Name: Gage
Posts: 1,232
|
Post by Mayze on May 27, 2015 21:23:19 GMT
I see what you mean Hyzoa, but there is many things that have already been given the go ahead, but still have yet to be implented, the Kaioken and the Makaioken for an example. The poll on that ended long ago, and we are still waiting on the implementation on that. Unless you are waiting for the Afterlife tutors, but I swear that's over and done with.
|
|
|
Post by Hyoza on May 27, 2015 21:33:21 GMT
It's not about what's been done, Mayze, it's about how long it's taken to do them. And yes, lack of implementation-necessary permissions for mods has had an effect (which is being remedied somewhat), but that's not all there is to it.
We have the issues of low-information voting, culminating in members pushing for ideas that conflict with or compromise the current overall design (like removing quality levels for grading), not to mention throwing their votes around without really understanding the impact of doing so. We regularly have the issue of members telling other members what the 'rules' are totally erroneously, too. And some of the individuals in question have been here a very long time, and still haven't gotten to grips with the way things work.
I don't want to sound disparaging - but often members don't pay attention to or fully understand the way things already work, and that has a direct negative impact on implementation - both in which ideas are put forward, and the form in which they ultimately reach implementation.
|
|
Mayze
Moderator
PL: 250,469
Super Saiyan(x12) MSSJ(x15)
Zeni: 849
Shoki: 2,965
Tag: @gagelange10
OOC Name: Gage
Posts: 1,232
|
Post by Mayze on May 27, 2015 21:36:34 GMT
Ah, I see your point Hyzoa. Low informed voting is bad, and I have seen a few cases of that during my tenure here. And I have seen some... interesting ideas as well.
|
|
|
Post by Vennel on May 27, 2015 22:43:40 GMT
Hyoza raises a good point, though I feel misinformed voting or low-informed voting will be a thing no matter what is done. Just look at modern (at least, as far as American politics go) politics.
Perhaps for any future polls/voting processes, all relevant information or a primer for it and links to fully available information should be made on those threads. This then allows people to be more informed providing they take the information present. But even then, you're bound to get people that understand things poorly, or have a different opinion on things.
That's just how voting works, and how democracies function. And quite honestly, that's supposedly one of it's shining point in comparison to other governmental models.
To avoid this, however, I'd say perhaps removing things that would affect major change, or would steer things from the intended design/aspects of the site should be made staff mandated. If the idea is to make this function as any other game would, designers need to have more freedom to create their vision of what the 'thing' is. Rather than letting masses with different ideas constantly contributing.
But where we stand now is an awkward inbetween point, where the community gives it's input, and sometimes things are declared unfit for the intended flow of the site, or one thing or another. Other times, things are useful and go through. Personally, I feel as though the staff should be able to do and move forward with whatever they feel is necessary, and the community remain free to make suggestions, be they for or against the topic at hand. It's then up to the staff to do with that suggestion as they will, seeing as it is just that, a suggestion.
Just my two bits on the subject though, based on what I've seen/experienced in my (albeit short) time here. So given my inexperience with the community, take any inaccuracies/sweeping statements with a grain of salt.
|
|
|
Post by President Bao on May 29, 2015 17:06:23 GMT
Sorry guys about the wait; I guess to respond more directly (Responses is blue) - Backbone: When this was a smaller operation I was the backbone, I was one of the main 'doers' around here cause there simply weren't other people dedicated to doing so. Back then the volume of changes was also smaller(more on this later*), and the amount of day-to-day work also smaller. Day-to-day is always higher priority then new content, the present is always before the future, and so most staff are diverted to that. To solve this, we need enough actual day-workers, and then with that covered we need more people to actively take on responsibilities, *and fufill them*. I have created processes, but with no one owning the fulfilment role things always fall back to me again, and prioritisation then leaves them sitting on hiatus.[case in point, the wodsouls list of things to do, no one except me ever updates or works on it... or the threads to discuss process] If you want to talk day-to-day work, we're keeping on top of it. we've expanded the staff team to include several new members over the past month and have been training them to grade and so on to help us prevent backlogs building up for more than 2 days. I feel fairly confident in saying right now grading and tech/character approval response times are some of the best they've ever been here. So I'd say we do have day-workers, plenty, in fact. But I also think it's understandable that no mod wants to just sit around doing grading all day. We apply for modship to help the site expand and develop, and it seems like we're oftentimes stymied from making much impact anywhere but with the basic grind of bureaucracy that this site - with all of  its procedures and processes - is becoming. The processes are simply layers upon layers of extra stuff that we have to keep track of. And really, they weren't followed even when we had dedicated staff overseeing them. Why bother? They just complicate something more than it needs to be in many places. Like all the sub-boards in the Suggestions area, which I have affectionately termed "Where suggestions go to die". Wanna know why these 'things to do' lists and so on sit there unfinished? Because we're here, on the front lines; dealing with questions, apps, grading, quelling arguments,  policing potential metagaming, and trying to find a way to make this easier for us. And that's just this week.I am aware of what has been happening last week I would even respectfully extend that to say there's a lot more going on than you may know of... for some context I get about 4-11 private messages each day alone, and pms are just one aspect of the daily work. A lot goes on.
(Also apologies but you are mistaken in your claim, sections which had dedicated staff overseeing them did have their processes followed.)
As for the processes you keep referencing - I'd disagree they are complicated or even multi-layered... >'add threads to the threads to grade topic so staff can see them' >'warnings should be accompanied by a warning board post with evidence', >'suggestions should be discussed before polls are made' ...despite how much you're trying to assert them as such.
I also don't really think it's unreasonable to allow people in different timezones a chance to contribute and to give enough legroom for people to analyse and consider the issue fully before we rush into choping and changing content. The discussion part has never been the issue when someone has supervised, the only time they stall out is when the community really doesn't care, or when it comes to implementation and I'm too busy. In the former it indicates an issue of low priority but could use a helping prod, and in the latter the issue is unrelated to democracy.
And I think you are completely correct when you illustrate the issue that was noted in my 'backbone' point: Managing the day-to-day is not about just scraping by, it's about having enough surplus that we can safely divert resources elsewhere without issue, which you are asserting here is not the case and thus why you have not been helping in areas you've been requested to help(not even a simple task such as submitting new 'things to do' to the to-do list). We agree so why is this being framed as a disagreement?
To tie it back in further: The proposal I have outlined explains what we need to achieve to solve this problem with our bandwidth, and the steps needed to do so. In order to refute this you need to demonstrate that either this noted issue does not infact exist or that your proposal solves this better than my own, this should be done through a persuasive argument that deconstructs the topic itself, not the topic participants - I know that as a clever guy you are probably aware of this, but... well, given this reply I wanted to expressly note such so we're all on the same page.
The reason nobody else ever designed a lot of the mechanical stuff is everyone was told you had a plan. We trusted in you to do it right. For the most part, we still do. But when there's mistakes, when things are unclear, when information is not made visible to those who need it - those who usually get left with the role of implementing it (us), it's somehow never your fault. The misinformation in the species profiles after the overhaul was as much to do with unclear wording of your original notes as it was the mods who implemented it. A lot of the undocumented and misunderstood aspects of the site are that way because the information exists only in your head. There have been many times you've stated something as a rule and a few of us in the discussion has been chatting on Skype like "Wait, where did that come from?". By whom? >.> I've been telling people to get engaged and suggest things since day one... I can lead a horse to water but I can't make it drink. Putting up a suggestion is about sharing an idea and recording a note for others to engage with, to hash out details and expose flaws or areas which are not clearly explained when coming up with an offered solution.
I'm just a fellow member, my title is entirely divorced from me suggesting and even implementing. Staff duties are grading, reviewing character apps, and enforcing site rules, that is it. Everything outside of that is member contribution entirely separate from staff status. I even expressly outline such when we bring you guys in - staff aren't deciders they are merely janitors/enforcers.
As for people not knowing things or having issues with the personal notes I passed along to help explain... excellent point. Refer to the 'To solve this' section of my point on Knowledge where I propose a solution to this.
Additionally, that 'never my fault' comment... has there ever been instance where I have corrected someone and assigned any sort of blame? If you can find such a time I will take every step to resolve that and apologise to the individual(though I can hold my hand to my heart and say I don't think you'll be able to find such a thing). Sometimes I point out 'oh, you must have misunderstood, when I said X I mean XYZ, not VWX', which is not about pointing fingers it's about understanding where they have come from and noting to myself how I can adjust my explanation in future to hopefully avoid a similar misunderstanding.
also please clarify, by 'stated something as a rule' - do you means rules, or mechanical explanations about features I suggested, such as durability being activated to block an attack? Cause again I am merely one person, I can't always tell what will be misunderstood or what isn't clarified enough, if you're volunteering time to help implement something, and you don't have the information, or you just thought of something and want to know, then ask >.> worse case scanario it's not a feature I'm familiar with and i'll either direct you to chase up the one who is, or try and figure out what it is.
A perfect example is claiming we don't understand the overall design of the game in terms of transformations (such as had been implied in discussions surrounding fixing Majin imbalance). Why is that? Probably because when the vote on secret transformations was tied, you decided to keep some of them a secret, meaning nobody else has access to info on what those hidden transformations are. This site is supposed to be a true democracy and honestly, you have elevated yourself above equality in some ways. I believe if you refer back to the threads where keeping transformations secret was being discussed you'll find that you are repeating the arguments I myself made when I voiced my opposition to secret forms... so yes, I agree, excluding people from knowing about and taking part in things is not satisfying. I don't quite recall which thread you're referring to given there have been many discussions, but it's also about taking the time and investment to seek such knowledge and understanding... making this learning more accessible helps with that, which is why I noted it above.
Regarding many of the mistakes - the direct source of them can be traced back to lack of information being disseminated among the staff and poor organisation - something which is directly caused in many cases by the overly-layered processes we have here, and the lack of clarity it often causes regarding where things should be discussed. Vi implemented them because it hadn't happened for an age - despite passing the site's voting processes as per your wishes long ago. It was a genuine attempt to make some headway towards clearing our implementation backlog, and it could be argued that you didn't exactly support Vi at all until he went ahead and did it. As for the species profiles, refer to my previous comments - that is as much on your head as anyone else's. You wrote the mechanics up - in some cases without fully describing their functions (such as android calibrations and arcosian PL gains modifiers IIRC). I seem to recall you then allowed other staff to write the final profiles and post them, apparently without checking them for errors first, since they ended up coming out the way they did, and in some cases still are. Indeed getting access to to the knowledge is important, refer to knowledge dot point. I disagree that any of our current processes are to blame however, providing evidence you feel supports this claim would help make it more convincing. I further disagree that 'abolishing democracy'(excluding the public) in any way addresses this issue, as it is one of staff organisation, which demonstrates we need to create a process for locating certain information. As for the banners... prioritisation is an important thing in the face of limited bandwidth, player affecting elements like addressing character apps, or responding to game-changing suggestions, is much more important(professionally speaking) than minor visual 'fluff'(elements which don't interfere with the users ability to play the game). I'm sorry if this was dissatisfactory to you or vipoi. With proper tracking and prioritisation such information would be more visible however, and contributors could plan accordingly.
And as I mentioned at the top, not going to throw anyone under the bus to make my point/counter yours, so if blame is what you need: yes, had a drafting thread in staff section, didn't check them before they were published, that is what occurred. Which is why I outlined the above strategy to avoid such issues in future.... I'm sorry but I have to reiterate, this blame thing is just one big offtopic 'smokescreen', it fails to address any of the points I've made and so far seems excursively to be a tactic to try and discredit me personally instead of counter any of my points or explain why your proposal addresses them better...
Tying this back in - by resolving the issue noted as 'mistakes', staff can get to implementing things faster, as we won't have to worry about misunderstandings generating extra work or disseminating misinformation, features instead fully analysed and signed off ahead of time.
We want to have a proper design roadmap and more focus on our efforts - but a huge part of not being able to have that right now is the literal disarray of the site. We're constantly being flooded with new suggestions, previous ones take too long to implement and are often not followed-up on. Streamlining the core design process to an internal staff matter allows us to more quickly deliberate and decide upon what actions we will take, leaving us more time for handling suggestions in the long run, as well as actually RPing. And if you want to go about this like a professional studio, the first thing we need to do away with is the democracy. Professionals don't sit around the table and let everyone just spew ideas non-stop without breaking to sort through older ideas. A very heavy-handed way to organise suggestions is indeed to deny people from being allowed to make them so that we remove the volume of submissions.
Implying that we can't prioritise suggestions onto a roadmap and handle them in an organised manner WITHOUT excluding the public from taking part however is... pardon me but; 'rubbish' and I know you're more than clever enough to realise this - lets not entertain such rice-paper thin justifications.
My suggested solutions would allow us to have a staff member(s) assigned to the suggestions board at last, they can then enact the process not currently in use, which was devised to solve the current thread bogging issue (and has already had the sections added to support this). People would then add their thread to the 'threads to discuss' topic to be prioritied and scheduled for featuring, this mod supervising them(as Pah did just above) would ensure they get the attention they deserve, before adding them to the roadmap for implementation or recording any follow-up which needed to be made. (Similarly members, just like Emer recently, are fully encouraged to help out. It's why the to-do list is public.)
Refer to Backbone and Consistency (and Mistakes) for relevant strategies. You have always been here, Bao. And no, we don't hold your lack of free time against you (though I do doubt somewhat that you spend as much of your free time here as you imply). Others have quit, me and rev included. We've gone on holidays, we've failed to fully live up to our responsibilities. This I cannot deny. But I can explain: We're here, above all else, to have fun, and to help the rest of our members to do the same. At times we've been critically understaffed and not had appropriate recruits available, leaving huge amounts of work on the shoulders of a mere handful of staff. the result? They get burned out. It stops being fun, and they leave. Now we're at a much more comfortable staffing level, but almost half our number are on hiatus or working reduced duties. Why? Because they're burned out and fed up. Some of the others didn't want to make this an emotional argument, but your wording makes it clear you're trying to appeal to people on an emotional level, and given the nature of this site, I feel emotion has every right to take a role in this discussion. Sorry to say it but emotions do not factor into this analysis. I don't care how it makes you feel to hear that staff reliability is an important factor that needs to be addressed(I do care, but personally, not as part of this analysis), that is not relevant and so not part of my discussion. The cold, emotionless fact I am outlining is that people leave, or decide to just stop doing their staff role, and that making strategies to resolve this is an important aspect of improving implementation and ruining of this site. You appear to have forgotten my comments when you first expressed interest in joining staff, the same ones I mentioned to all staff I oversaw - being staff isn't about fun - being staff is straight up work, a sacrifice you are choosing to make in goodwill in order to keep this place running. Compared to other sites Souls staff have been stripped of their power over the game, all the 'fun' stuff like coming up with new content ideas is available for all members to take part in not just staff, meaning moderation and administration is exclusively about doing the work no one wants to do, the boring stuff like grading, settling disputes, reviewing applications and enforcing the rules...The stifling process and the almost complete lack of your support leave the staff feeling like crap, to be blunt. Most everything I've seen you post regarding other staff in the past few months (though not all) has been polite reprimands for not following process, undermining their authority to enact their duties and putting a soft veto on their ideas. Case in point: You stalling my creation of Mojo and then just not replying to me when I didn't accept your preferred version of the Zoon-seijin. Or the new species profiles. It was being discussed for ages, but it wasn't until we started actually writing up fully-modified profiles that you decided to tell us there was a new format coming out, and we had to re-do everything in the new format. Hyoza... I mean this in the nicest possible way when I say you are just one member of over 65 daily active users(and even more semi-actives), step back for a moment and consider what sort of things were going on last week and the week before which may have caused me to have to shift focus from a minor pm thread with you which was a non-blocker to you playing your character, to other issues. I actually feel you're being more than a little rude here, so sorry if I sound less patient than usual...As for the new profile format, I asked for help and received no interest. I began working on them in the background as time permitted. I DID tell people that I was working on a new format(Back before the currently posted profiles were even up!) and even posted that new format in the public thread on the topic around the same time majins were coming in... ... sigh, never-mind it, I'll just go along with me being to blame, lets just finish up.
Re; 'Complete lack of support'... ... Consider for a moment the situation my friend - I'm not here 24/7 to answer questions, so a strategy to address that is to outline notes explaining to moderators what to do about certain situations they are likely to face so that everyone is enforcing in a consistent and fair manner, and people know about things (see Knowledge)... these instructions are called a process.
And yes, when I see a mod pushing something straight to poll, or banning someone without proper warning or evidence, or even creating an important discussion thread like site canon in the staff board instead of out where others can take part - It is my role as an administrator and staff member to point out they are not following processes and rectify the situation as best I can... Which is where the above noted solutions, and 'consistency' comes in, with that stability I can be manager more, providing 'hands on' support more to all who need it and ensuring everything is in place for you guys to handle your elected responsibilities.
Our democratic and open nature means staff don't need to be 'united'. We can disagree on things, we can share our opinions on suggestions, because we are members just like everyone else. It helps break down this 'staff vs members' mentality that exists in more traditional places where staff only discuss in private and when dealing with members present this stone-wall as if they are all of one mind. It's a strategy designed to subjugate by not showing 'weakness' to the 'outsiders', but I think here we stand for something more frank and honest than that.
This post is coming off real accusatory, and that honestly upsets me because I don't blame you for many of the site's failings, Bao. In fact, we have a lot to thank you for, given how successful this site is becoming off the back of mechanics and layout you and rev are primarily responsible for. But you're setting yourself up as this supreme authority (perhaps unintentionally), while reprimanding us for doing anything in secret or behind closed doors. We're getting the heat for not getting everything done and done by the book when you (who have on several occasions violated your own processes) are often nowhere to be seen. Please elaborate, so that I may rectify these violations and dish out warnings if needed.I will say though, you assert you're not wanting to try and blame, and then spend every reply you've made to me so far finding segues to repeat how I'm the one to blame. :X
Doing things by the book is important, to avoid mistakes/misunderstandings, keep things fair, have a consistent backbone to work off, and to make sure people have knowledge about how things are operated. If you ever feel something should be changed or has been unclear/not defined, then simply make a thread... it's what I do XD. For example if you think arcosians *should* actually have +25% gains in base form then simply suggest such and make your case
If you want to take a good hard look at what is currently going on, read the thoughts put forward in this thread, and communicate more with your staff. We all came into this with great respect and fondness for you, and it saddens me to say that has been muddied for many of the staff of late. We want to get past this full-democracy and instead move onto a new system (one which still grants members power of veto and the ability to propose changes), a system which allows us to more quickly and effectively implement changes and coordinate on what we're doing. Do we have to do it behind closed doors? Yes. Is everyone going to get their say? No, at least not straight away. But does it need to happen? Most everyone else seems to think so, based on this thread. I think that's very telling.
Certainly, It tells that people agree that the slow implementation-phase problem exists, I also agree the problem exists. My alternate proposal stems from the fact that I don't agree your solution is the only or best way of resolving the issue... that we can solve the troubles without locking out the community from direct agency, and that everyone can get their say. ((@all given the time this took, I likely won't be doing full post replies like this for all, though I will endeavour to address the key points you may have, assuming they are not covered in the above. Will also try and invest in a TL;DR version tomorrow... need sleep))
|
|
|
Post by President Bao on May 31, 2015 15:03:57 GMT
Bumping, as this is currently considered a higher priority than any other discussion currently under way.
TL;DR summary Blaming is bad and not the point of this, I re-assert slow implementation is a problem on the organisation side not on the democracy side, and use the responses to further nail home my proposals merit in resolving this
quote section 1) 'says things are under control, then says things are being ignored cause staff is too busy' - this simply reinforces my point about 'backbone'
quote section 2) 'says my own notes being unclear is the source of misunderstandings' - this also emphasises my point about 'knowledge', further strengthening my case 'Also says secret transformations are bad' - I note this is exactly what I said at the time
quote section 3) 'says mistakes are from lack of knowledge and disorganisation' - this emphasises my own points on 'knowledge' and 'mistakes' 'says if I want professional studio abolish democracy' - I counter than implying we can't organise and prioritise suggestions without abolishing democracy is incorrect, and that solving the issues I noted will allow us to have a suggestions moderator and better/faster implimentation.
quote section 4) 'says staff are there to have fun' - I point out all the fun stuff like game additions being open to non-staff, staff is a sacrifice made to help by doing the boring stuff like grading 'more accusations' - I explain that instructions are to help
quote section 5) 'says that I keep policing them when they don't do things by the book but i'm not always around' - I point out that doing things by the book is important, to avoid mistakes/misunderstanding and to keep things fair 'says it is telling that people seem to agree' - I agree, that it tells us the implementation issue is real, but that I don't agree locking out the community is the way to solve it
|
|
|
Post by Zuni on May 31, 2015 15:40:33 GMT
I'm going to use the Rekiko example in order to illustrate the point about speed, because I feel this is a perfect opportunity to demonstrate where and how the current system is failing players and staff alike. I don't want anyone to feel attacked by this, but this is how I see the situation. Staff was made to make a call on Reikiko re-fusing with her alt. The call was made, the deed was done. This then got tangled up with the notion of a race change and what that might mean. Rather than making a call and moving on, threads were made, with the assumption being that whatever decision was come to would bind the community as a whole in all further decisions going forward. This subject is now being discussed: Here: wodsouls.freeforums.net/thread/3432/homunculi-race-change?page=1Here: wodsouls.freeforums.net/thread/3429/de-fission-community-clarify?page=1and with a tangential note here: wodsouls.freeforums.net/thread/2348/namekian-fusionIt has been rolling on for three days with broad agreement that what happened was for the best but a desire to make sure a precedent is set and ratified for the site as a whole, when this particular instance is one where there's so many relevant details - both IC and OOC - that trying to apply anything broadly as a result of it seems absurd, to me. Every day that this situation continues to go forward without a line being drawn underneath it, Reikiko is trapped in limbo with her character, unable to know where or in what form she carries on from here. This is an incredibly demoralizing and stressful situation for her - but she has to suffer because the site demands that all issues be treated in the exact same way when - frankly - I don't feel like it is my place as a player to tell another player what they can and can't do with their character to this kind of level. In a tabletop game, Reikiko's situation is one where a GM would consider the issue in discussion with her, then make a ruling and everyone would carry on. I understand that this game demands we all take on the role of GM to some degree, but at the moment, I feel like the process allows too much room for people to interfere with issues that are of no importance to them whatsoever simply because they can, and it expects too high a degree of consistency. To put it another way - in Reikiko's situation, she should be able to do it and we should all keep telling great stories with that player. Avoiding inflammatory language as much as possible, if some 'unscrupulous' player were to try and use this ruling to gain a significant PL advantage or otherwise game the system, they should not be able to do so and they should be slapped down. This is not something that should be a popularity contest, however, and democracies are always at risk of becoming just that. Thus, we need to choose to elevate some players above others - players who are held to a higher standard, who are expected to remain impartial, and who take on more of the GM role by dint of their elevated status. In other words, staff. There are a multitude of other situations where staff should have the freedom to just say 'yes' or 'no' without needing to canvas support far and wide from an expanding playerbase, many of whom do not - and arguably should not - care either way about what is going on with the issue at hand. This particular situation is just one where it has struck me as particularly noteworthy that the bureaucracy in place is actively harming the game experience of several players, and is causing some tension. I suspect that these frustrations are also why you, Bao, feel you are being attacked at times. You are fighting to maintain the integrity of a system that seems - to many others - like nothing more than a bunch of red tape which is actively harming their play experience. This may well be an unfair perception, but as any politician will tell you, what the electorate thinks of your intentions is never founded on a fair and objective evaluation of what you've said and done.
|
|
|
Post by President Bao on Jun 1, 2015 2:41:03 GMT
Not to be a pain but I'd point out the reason reikiko's situation occurred was because the rules weren't followed, if they had been this issue wouldn't have emerged.
Instead of making a thread outlining the situation and seeing if everyone was cool with a rule change, (explaining the current rules/precedence, and explaining what we'd like to do instead), Staff made an executive decision and enacted it without community consent.
Reikiko then entered a saga thread with a large sum of new pl based on this decision, and those involved in the thread (reasonably enough) called foul/admin abuse, forcing me to have to get involved and try and straighten this all out.
|
|
|
Post by Zuni on Jun 1, 2015 6:26:11 GMT
It isn't being a pain to share an alternative point of view - that's what this process is all about, no? But I'd disagree that process and procedure would have solved this situation entirely. Given that the race change aspect came about AFTER the Saga situation began, as a response to the OOC bad feeling which is essentially inevitable as a Bio-Android, I suspect that we would have had a 'sure you can refuse' situation, and then in several weeks/months when the next DE thread rolled around, then the race change aspect would have come up again. The fundamental problem is that you're canvassing the opinion of the community far too often and for reasons which shouldn't necessarily be opened up to everyone, because they aren't relevant to everyone. People then get (understandably, IMO) upset when their play is interrupted to allow the entire site to voice their opinions on whether what they want is legit. That would all still have occurred, it just would have occurred slower - and possibly twice - because you'd have to go through the entire process of getting the re-fusing approved, probably ending the DE thread, and then do it all over again when the race issue was brought up down the line.
|
|
Koramund
Archived
PL: 121,168
Bio Metabolize(x3)
Zeni: 2,003
Shoki: 7,708
Tag: @koramund
OOC Name: Saiyan, Namekian, Human
Posts: 694
|
Post by Koramund on Jun 1, 2015 11:09:52 GMT
Not to be a pain but I'd point out the reason reikiko's situation occurred was because the rules weren't followed, if they had been this issue wouldn't have emerged. Instead of making a thread outlining the situation and seeing if everyone was cool with a rule change, (explaining the current rules/precedence, and explaining what we'd like to do instead), Staff made an executive decision and enacted it without community consent. Reikiko then entered a saga thread with a large sum of new pl based on this decision, and those involved in the thread (reasonably enough) called foul/admin abuse, forcing me to have to get involved and try and straighten this all out. Bao, no one was FIGHTING, it was a game. You said saga, she did not fight, no one did. There is no use of pl in a rp exactly, and its not like she did this on purpose to gain power, i pray not, so I personally don't agree with your view here. But back on topic, i vote we make this a democratic republic, where we vote for leaders who share our views and they make the decision. we will have a vote every 3 months, and the leaders will show their posts in the voting for a week. That vote during the week will decide if the leader should stay or go. More later, phone
|
|
|
Post by Kaula on Jun 3, 2015 5:14:26 GMT
I'm going to go ahead and put a timer on this because we desperately need this to go to a vote. Let's say this discussion will be pretty much over.. By the third? 12 pm Eastern?
After that, I can see it going to a vote.
|
|