Page 6 of 65

Re: The official server-move flamewar topic

Posted: 28 May 2013, 18:17
by Len
blackrazor wrote: You contradict yourself. It's not an illusion. What stops employees from walking off is their desire to eat, or in the case of volunteers, to keep doing something that fulfills them.

:roll: Yes, because employers just give the employees overtime and minimum wage out of kindness. Alexander the Great's conquest was once cut short due to his soldiers refusing to go on. (They said NO to the man who essentially controlled the known world)

We are not talking about government, we are talking about producing a game (creator driven design is almost always the best approach). Admins should be part of the TMWC, but not necessarily the ones calling the shots. This is still a democracy, but its in-house among those whom best understand the problems. Players often have their own interest at heart and not the games, for example if it was up to players nothing would ever be nurfed or wiped (The game would be an in-balanced mess with a terrible economy). So why would anyone follow an official voted in by the community?

Re: The official server-move flamewar topic

Posted: 28 May 2013, 19:06
by blackrazor
Len wrote: We are not talking about government, we are talking about producing a game (creator driven design is almost always the best approach)
Producing a game is very different from managing a game. This is where mMOGs change the picture, because they have to be maintained, with a server, bandwidth, community outreach, policing / moderation, etc.

As far as managing a game is concerned, it is very much like government. Say what you like about Platyna, but she saw that distinction, which is why she tried to keep the production (development) and management (GM, admin) separate. I basically agree with that premise, but seeing how much discomfort an unelected body can inflict before it is overthrown, I was proposing an elected alternative, with community nomination, voting, term lengths, and even recall votes if needed, all of this only for the one top-admin spot, nothing else changes.

I'm surprised more developers are not onboard with this. It is something that could never lord over them in the way they claimed Platyna had, and the person would likely be elected from their ranks. It would leave them free to pursue development work, which they stated they preferred. I thought all this admin stuff was a real hassle and distraction for them, and it was only out of necessity (to overthrow Platyna) that they took up the admin mantle in the first place.

Re: The official server-move flamewar topic

Posted: 28 May 2013, 19:18
by Len
blackrazor wrote:
Len wrote: I'm surprised more developers are not onboard with this. It is something that could never lord over them in the way they claimed Platyna had, and the person would likely be elected from their ranks. It would leave them free to pursue development work, which they stated they preferred. I thought all this admin stuff was a real hassle and distraction for them, and it was only out of necessity (to overthrow Platyna) that they took up the admin mantle in the first place.
:alt-=: Your out of your mind if you think someone just walked in here and said, "I'm the leader now" (and the development team went along with it). Developers are on board, because we have access to the council forum and are involved with the development work. We still have an admin who does the "admin stuff", but whom is a part of and subservient to the TMWC.

Re: The official server-move flamewar topic

Posted: 28 May 2013, 19:33
by blackrazor
Len wrote: :alt-=: Your out of your mind if you think someone just walked in here and said, "I'm the leader now" (and the development team went along with it). Developers are on board, because we have access to the council forum and are involved with the development work.
You forgot that part about the voting. No one is just going to walk in and take control. And there are term lengths and recall votes if you need to replace the person. Don't you like democracy? Or is it okay to have autocracy, as long as you're the autocrat?

EDIT:
I should mention that the top-admin would stay out of development; no one would be telling developers how to do their jobs.

A top-admin is there as a final arbiter of disputes, to respond to issues where a member of the community claims unfair treatment from a GM or forum admin, to make sure the project actually legally exists and has a constitution, working to get these things worked on, if they are not there already, making sure there is a hosting contract that specifies that the host has no claim on the project or the files. Those are the sorts of things that a top-admin typically handles.

Re: The official server-move flamewar topic

Posted: 28 May 2013, 19:43
by mistergrey
blackrazor: While I get that you're trying to push an idea that you like... Please do not try to make others out to be bad people or power hungry, simply because they don't like your idea. That's getting dangerously close to that "you're either with us, or against us" mentality, and well... that one never leaves anyone looking good. If you're confident about it, then your arguments don't need to include asking people if they like/dislike democracy - it should simply appeal by logic, in that case. I'm sure most of us like democracy... but yeah, we get sick of voting polls and the associated drama too.

The way I see it, a new, voted in "final arbiter" is pointless if they can just be replaced easily, and require that same irritating vote process all over. If they are not so replaceable... you run the risk of what happened before, or even someone intentionally using their power to drive away those they don't like. I'm not trying to bash your idea, just throw some contrary logic your way - I figure it could come in much nastier form from someone else lol.

Re: The official server-move flamewar topic

Posted: 28 May 2013, 19:47
by Len
blackrazor wrote:
Len wrote: I should mention that the top-admin would stay out of development; no one would be telling developers how to do their jobs.

A top-admin is there as a final arbiter of disputes, to respond to issues where a member of the community claims unfair treatment from a GM or forum admin, to make sure the project actually legally exists and has a constitution, working to get these things worked on, if they are not there already, making sure there is a hosting contract that specifies that the host has no claim on the project or the files. Those are the sorts of things that a top-admin typically handles.

That's basically what we have! You are aware that people can reach a consensus through discussion (not in this thread however) and not just voting?

Re: The official server-move flamewar topic

Posted: 28 May 2013, 20:09
by blackrazor
mistergrey wrote:blackrazor: While I get that you're trying to push an idea that you like... Please do not try to make others out to be bad people or power hungry, simply because they don't like your idea. That's getting dangerously close to that "you're either with us, or against us" mentality, and well... that one never leaves anyone looking good. If you're confident about it, then your arguments don't need to include asking people if they like/dislike democracy - it should simply appeal by logic, in that case. I'm sure most of us like democracy... but yeah, we get sick of voting polls and the associated drama too.

The way I see it, a new, voted in "final arbiter" is pointless if they can just be replaced easily, and require that same irritating vote process all over. If they are not so replaceable... you run the risk of what happened before, or even someone intentionally using their power to drive away those they don't like. I'm not trying to bash your idea, just throw some contrary logic your way - I figure it could come in much nastier form from someone else lol.
mistergrey, why am I being accused of making others out to be bad people or power hungry, simply because I ask if they like democracy after they keep resisting a democratic idea. I don't care if someone comes up with a better democratic idea that everybody loves, in fact, I would prefer that. Please do. I was just trying to get the conversation moving in a democratic direction, and it's not lost on me, that if Platyna and TMWC can both agree to this sort of idea, it might even re-unite the community. Maybe everyone won't be best friends, but at least we could be back together.

On the other hand, when someone calls me "out of my mind" to suggest it, that is perfectly okay? How does that work, exactly? If you are moderating, why isn't that brought up, as well?

Re: The official server-move flamewar topic

Posted: 28 May 2013, 20:21
by Len
simply because I ask if they like democracy after they keep resisting a democratic idea.
No, you presented a false dichotomy,
Don't you like democracy? Or is it okay to have autocracy, as long as you're the autocrat?


Implying that the only options are between democracy (as you define it) or autocracy (forgetting the infinite other ways in which a group can organize itself).

Re: The official server-move flamewar topic

Posted: 28 May 2013, 20:35
by blackrazor
Len wrote: Implying that the only options are between democracy (as you define it) or autocracy (forgetting the infinite other ways in which a group can organize itself).
What would some of these other ways in which a group can organize itself be called? Please give examples of these organizations and their names, so that I can better understand.

Re: The official server-move flamewar topic

Posted: 28 May 2013, 20:35
by Big Crunch
We have essentially a Representative Republic now. TMWC is made up of content devs, gms (which are purely player representative), code devs, etc. I dont see how one person to rule them all would be beneficial. To that point, during the recent issue between Nard and Crush, Freeyorp volunteered to serve as a neutral arbitrator of sorts.

One of the main issues I have with putting one person in the top spot is that they have no freedom to do as they wish. All of us, players, devs, GMs to a lesser degree, float in and out of various levels of activity regarding the project. Having one person as the Final Say is alot to put on someone and expect them to maintain a good and positive outlook, as they only see negatives.

Right now if there is a question about content, Jenalya makes the final call. If there is a question about server code, o11c makes the final call. If there is an admin issue, Frost makes the final call. If there is an issue with anyone person in TMWC, we address it as a group. It has worked pretty damn well, tbh. We were doing it before the move and after. Someone brings something up, we discuss it, sometimes heatedly, but in the end we come to an agreement. It works.

So I ask. Why change something that works, just for the sake of change?

BC

Re: The official server-move flamewar topic

Posted: 28 May 2013, 20:55
by blackrazor
Big Crunch wrote:We have essentially a Representative Republic now. TMWC is made up of content devs, gms (which are purely player representative), code devs, etc. I dont see how one person to rule them all would be beneficial. To that point, during the recent issue between Nard and Crush, Freeyorp volunteered to serve as a neutral arbitrator of sorts.

One of the main issues I have with putting one person in the top spot is that they have no freedom to do as they wish. All of us, players, devs, GMs to a lesser degree, float in and out of various levels of activity regarding the project. Having one person as the Final Say is alot to put on someone and expect them to maintain a good and positive outlook, as they only see negatives.

Right now if there is a question about content, Jenalya makes the final call. If there is a question about server code, o11c makes the final call. If there is an admin issue, Frost makes the final call. If there is an issue with anyone person in TMWC, we address it as a group. It has worked pretty damn well, tbh. We were doing it before the move and after. Someone brings something up, we discuss it, sometimes heatedly, but in the end we come to an agreement. It works.

So I ask. Why change something that works, just for the sake of change?

BC
It's not a republic. Republics are defined by having a constitution. I have advocated for such a thing, but to the best of my knowledge, none exists nor has it ever existed.

It's not representative either. There is no universal suffrage. GM are elected without term lengths and everyone else is appointed.

I'm not talking about changing the whole system or anyone's responsibilities, either. I'm talking about adding a constitution and adding a top elected official, which ironically, would make it what you called it: A representative republic. It would be a republic because it would have a constitution, and it would be representative because there would be universal suffrage for the top-admin role.

I already defined the top-admin's role earlier in this thread, and from that it should be clear that they would not be there to lord over anyone nor would they prevent TMWC voting and consensus. They would have an executive role, similar to a president, to help draft and defend the constitution and to make sure the project legally exists and has all it's contracts in order. Also, they would be there to settle disputes in a manner similar to what Freeyorp offered in your example, but because they would be voted in, they would probably be seen as more impartial than someone on the committee mediating on behalf of someone else on the committee and a player.

Re: The official server-move flamewar topic

Posted: 28 May 2013, 21:01
by mistergrey
blackrazor: Firstly, exactly what Len said is why I responded to you the way I did. The way you put that question out there, implies that "if you don't like my democratic suggestions, is it because you like being the one in charge?", and ignores that someone could simply disagree with you, without any consideration for power. Last I heard, asking someone if they are out of their mind is not much of an insult, I wouldn't even act on that in the game - so why should I here?

To be honest, I don't think such a top-admin would be trusted anymore than the TMWC. People are fickle, and would find reason to complain as soon as said top-admin had to make an unpopular choice for the good of the game. That, is part of why I don't really support the "top authority" of this project being player-elected. Such a person, would constantly be torn between what is best for the project, and what would make the players the happiest, and often those things don't coincide neatly.

Re: The official server-move flamewar topic

Posted: 28 May 2013, 21:20
by Jaxad0127
blackrazor wrote:It's not a republic. Republics are defined by having a constitution. I have advocated for such a thing, but to the best of my knowledge, none exists nor has it ever existed.
Since when was that a requirement? A republic is a system where the power lies with their people or their chose representatives. From that TMW is half republic (the GMs).

Re: The official server-move flamewar topic

Posted: 28 May 2013, 21:23
by blackrazor
mistergrey wrote:blackrazor: Firstly, exactly what Len said is why I responded to you the way I did. The way you put that question out there, implies that "if you don't like my democratic suggestions, is it because you like being the one in charge?", and ignores that someone could simply disagree with you, without any consideration for power. Last I heard, asking someone if they are out of their mind is not much of an insult, I wouldn't even act on that in the game - so why should I here?

To be honest, I don't think such a top-admin would be trusted anymore than the TMWC. People are fickle, and would find reason to complain as soon as said top-admin had to make an unpopular choice for the good of the game. That, is part of why I don't really support the "top authority" of this project being player-elected. Such a person, would constantly be torn between what is best for the project, and what would make the players the happiest, and often those things don't coincide neatly.
Implication is a funny thing. Perhaps instead, you could have seen it as a challenge to come up with a better democratic idea of your own. That would certainly be my preference.

4144 proved with his manaplus client that often, what is best for the game is exactly what makes the players happiest, of course in a long-term sustainable kind of way.

Re: The official server-move flamewar topic

Posted: 28 May 2013, 21:24
by o11c
Jaxad0127 wrote:
blackrazor wrote:It's not a republic. Republics are defined by having a constitution. I have advocated for such a thing, but to the best of my knowledge, none exists nor has it ever existed.
Since when was that a requirement? A republic is a system where the power lies with their people or their chose representatives. From that TMW is half republic (the GMs).
And the other half meritocracy. As in "people who do useful things", not "people who talk a lot on the forums".

/me dives back into the code.