suggestion to give long-time active players some voting

[Nard]

I like long walks on the beach, pina coladas, and getting caught in the rain. I like making love at midnight in the dunes of the cape.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5_EIikdFr8
Thanks Frost for explanation

[blackrazor]

I am also an adept of "counter power": I mean that the best decisions result from debates where contradiction is allowed. If members are chosen among people who mostly agree with the existing comittee... :/

I think for a senior player, it should be automatic, no player vote, no TMWC approval. Sort of like the current "20-post voting for GM" rule is now, but with a higher bar of entry. It should be what a senior player is entitled, unless he is a rule-breaker or major disruptive force, in which case, he will already have accumulated infractions (on either game, forum, or both) which could disqualify him.

For a player representative, it is completely different. Here the fellow players must be able to vote for him. I further suggest term limits, to ensure that our player representatives are most representative of the players they currently represent. Since they represent the players, I see no reason for a TMWC approval, although if the candidates are rule-breakers, that could disqualify them as a special case. Also, if you allow a TMWC veto, then maybe we could use the USA veto system for governors and presidents, which does allow a veto, but the originating body (legislature, congress, ... players) can override it with a high enough majority. I know the USA uses this system to allow, but also to balance, veto powers; perhaps other countries and organizations do it as well.

[Nard]

I am also an adept of "counter power": I mean that the best decisions result from debates where contradiction is allowed. If members are chosen among people who mostly agree with the existing comittee... :/

I think for a senior player, it should be automatic, no player vote, no TMWC approval. Sort of like the current "20-post voting for GM" rule is now, but with a higher bar of entry. It should be what a senior player is entitled, unless he is a rule-breaker or major disruptive force, in which case, he will already have accumulated infractions (on either game, forum, or both) which could disqualify him.

For a player representative, it is completely different. Here the fellow players must be able to vote for him. I further suggest term limits, to ensure that our player representatives are most representative of the players they currently represent. Since they represent the players, I see no reason for a TMWC approval, although if the candidates are rule-breakers, that could disqualify them as a special case. Also, if you allow a TMWC veto, then maybe we could use the USA veto system for governors and presidents, which does allow a veto, but the originating body (legislature, congress, ... players) can override it with a high enough majority. I know the USA uses this system to allow, but also to balance, veto powers; perhaps other countries and organizations do it as well.

UNO
also
The institution of the veto, known as the intercessio, was adopted by the Roman Republic in the 6th century BC to enable the tribunes to protect the interests of the plebs (common citizenry) from the encroachments of the patricians, who dominated the Senate.

[gator]

I agree with Nard and blackrazor - there should not be a need for TMWC approval for a person to represent the view of the players. We want to avoid a conflict of interest (e.g. a dev, admin or gm being the same person to represent the view/opinion(s) of the players). Requiring TMWC to approve of the person who is going to represent the players interest/opinion in certain matters completely defeats the purpose in the first place. We might as well just forget about it if that will be the case. Just saying.

This type of thing is not a threat to the leadership. It should add validity and strength to the community and leadership as a whole. It must be done right if it is to be done at all.

I think some of us see a need for something like this especially in hindsight of the recent future. That said, we dont want to create a lot of extra work to get a person in a new position that isnt clearly defined. We may or may not end up creating this player representative position - either way it is important for the players views to be represented even when those views/ opinions may not be something the devs/ admins completely agree with. Players still have a right to be heard and feel validated. At the same time we know that we can seem unreasonable in our views/ wishes at times. And many of us dont know a whole lot of what goes on behind the scenes. (We do appreciate all the work and effort that goes into TMW immensely, by the way - because we wouldn't have this wonderful place without it).

I know I personally dont want someone to say "all" the players decided... or wanted it this way.... (in something that directly affects gameplay especially) - if I never had a say in something or a chance to do so. In a case like that - this is where we might need this player representative (or other equally valid concept). In many things - the forum works pretty good and the players do get a chance to talk with the gms in game tho.