The Mana World Forums

.:WildX:. wrote:My post was directed to the TMWC, Crush is part of it.

Because I didn't contribute to the development for years I do not see myself as a committee member. Unfortunately they refuse to not see me as one

It makes sense to me that the top forum admin(s) would be on the TMWC, since the forum is an integral part of the gaming community.

How the TMWC handles the interesting issue that a member of the TMWC can moderate other members of the TMWC, but then in turn his moderation of those TMWC members can be brought before the TMWC for review, is exactly the kind of opaque situation that confounds the player community and it is exactly the sort of conflict of interest and tangled web that begs for a single executive leader at the top, such as we had before with Platyna.

Rules are not just for players, they keep everyone in line. Everyone needs them. That you were not so fond of Platyna's control suggests to me that she was actually doing her job as ultimate arbiter and admin of the game. It's hard to be everyone's friend when you have to make and enforce rules for others to follow, but it's a needed role, and it's missing now.

blackrazor wrote: How the TMWC handles the interesting issue that a member of the TMWC can moderate other members of the TMWC, but then in turn his moderation of those TMWC members can be brought before the TMWC for review, is exactly the kind of opaque situation that confounds the player community and it is exactly the sort of conflict of interest and tangled web that begs for a single executive leader at the top, such as we had before with Platyna.

We, as individuals, *choose* to submit to Crush in the forums, because we all respect him. Likewise, we submit to the GM team in-game.

If we ever have a real problem with another member of the team (not mere disagreement, which is necessary to avoid groupthink), the issue will be discussed with the rest of the TMWC and if necessary they can be removed by consensus.

What's hard to understand about that?

Crush wrote:I do not see myself as a committee member. Unfortunately they refuse to not see me as one

are you obliged to be in TMWC against your will?

o11c wrote: We, as individuals, *choose* to submit to Crush in the forums, because we all respect him. Likewise, we submit to the GM team in-game.

If we ever have a real problem with another member of the team (not mere disagreement, which is necessary to avoid groupthink), the issue will be discussed with the rest of the TMWC and if necessary they can be removed by consensus.

What's hard to understand about that?

What I find opaque is that now you can *chose* to submit to authority, based on respect, which also means you can choose not to, as well. It's a choice. Before, you were bound by rules, Platyna's rules, like it or not. I think being bound by rules is better for everyone, it keeps everyone in line, and while it isn't always fun (just ask any player that is being scrutinized properly by a GM), it was for the better of the game, in my opinion.

"Removed by consensus" is also sort of opaque. Does it have to be unanimous, 75%, 67%, 51% ? Does the degree of consensus vary with whether a server admin is being considered for removal as opposed to a GM, or is everyone strictly equal now? What if the TMWC gets divided into two camps, with irresolvable issues, how will you mediate that sort of thing now, without an executive acting as final arbiter?

blackrazor wrote:it is exactly the sort of conflict of interest and tangled web that begs for a single executive leader at the top

Who watches the watchman?

I believe that the current separation of powers on the forum is a quite good situation of checks and balances. I moderate the council members and they respect me, but when they aren't satisfied with the way I am doing it, they can always pull the plug on me. That's much better IMO than being policed by a superior overlord who isn't controlled by anyone and only shares the power he/she wants to share.

Nard wrote:are you obliged to be in TMWC against your will?

Help! They have captured me! They are keeping me tied to a computer. They punish me when I don't moderate the forum. Someone rescue me!
What? No, they would never do something like that.

blackrazor wrote:"Removed by consensus" is also sort of opaque. Does it have to be unanimous, 75%, 67%, 51% ? Does the degree of consensus vary with whether a server admin is being considered for removal as opposed to a GM, or is everyone strictly equal now? What if the TMWC gets divided into two camps, with irresolvable issues, how will you mediate that sort of thing now, without an executive acting as final arbiter?

These topics have already come up internally, but the committe members decided to wait a bit with nailing down things like that until the emotions of everyone have cooled down a bit.

blackrazor wrote:

o11c wrote: We, as individuals, *choose* to submit to Crush in the forums, because we all respect him. Likewise, we submit to the GM team in-game.

If we ever have a real problem with another member of the team (not mere disagreement, which is necessary to avoid groupthink), the issue will be discussed with the rest of the TMWC and if necessary they can be removed by consensus.

What's hard to understand about that?

What I find opaque is that now you can *chose* to submit to authority, based on respect, which also means you can choose not to, as well. It's a choice. Before, you were bound by rules, Platyna's rules, like it or not. I think being bound by rules is better for everyone, it keeps everyone in line, and while it isn't always fun (just ask any player that is being scrutinized properly by a GM), it was for the better of the game, in my opinion.

"Removed by consensus" is also sort of opaque. Does it have to be unanimous, 75%, 67%, 51% ? Does the degree of consensus vary with whether a server admin is being considered for removal as opposed to a GM, or is everyone strictly equal now? What if the TMWC gets divided into two camps, with irresolvable issues, how will you mediate that sort of thing now, without an executive acting as final arbiter?

1. We all chose to submit to his authority on the forums, but only the forums. The reference to egregious abuse was concerning ANY abuse, to TMWC or regular forum user.
2. We are still bound by rules, but rules that we decide as a group (referring only to the TMWC here, we all have agreed to game and forum rules upon signup).
3. Regarding % of votes required that is not something we've decided as of yet. I can say that in something of this nature, the Advisor role will come into play, heavily I'm sure as they have had experience dealing with things of this nature.
4. Everyone within the group is equal and has an equal opinion. That said, I dont believe there is a single issue where we havent been able to weigh and measure both sides of the argument properly. And unless i'm mistaken (which is possible, of course) the only issue where we were unanimous was regarding the move from platinum. (Crush actually did not participate in this move, neither did ChickaMaria as she was officially added after the move)

BC

blackrazor wrote: What I find opaque is that now you can *chose* to submit to authority, based on respect, which also means you can choose not to, as well. It's a choice.

But if we did that, we would likely be removed, or at least seriously curtailed, by the rest of the TMWC.

blackrazor wrote: "Removed by consensus" is also sort of opaque. Does it have to be unanimous, 75%, 67%, 51% ? Does the degree of consensus vary with whether a server admin is being considered for removal as opposed to a GM, or is everyone strictly equal now? What if the TMWC gets divided into two camps, with irresolvable issues, how will you mediate that sort of thing now, without an executive acting as final arbiter?

Based on the kind of issues we've had to face in the last few years, that doesn't happen. We don't count votes (since the point is to discuss our reasoning), but if people actually form "sides", the less popular side will concede. If opinions are split evenly - or even if they're split unevenly but not to the point of being completely one-sided - then we realize that there has been no consensus, and either start introducing new alternatives, or go with the most conservative change.

Yes, if there ever comes an issue on which we become bitterly divided, it would be harmful to the project. But this would be the case no matter what power system there was, and such issues are rare enough that I seriously doubt we'll ever see one. We're all reasonable people here, after all.

And all that in less than a month. ..

Trivia in TMW was my idea, it was nice time for the community...now I read insults...

There is a month after take over of my server, and basicaly nothing, besides titles of certain persons, has been changed (for any person capable of logical thinking it would be clear signal that the way I managed TMW over all these years was good), just my ideas and my regulations are being attributed to TMWC (which consist only GMs that operated under my rules, and developers who granted themselves powers I refused to give them) and I am being insulted.

What will be next?

TMWC existence caused only two things:
1. A person who established and cared for this community is being insulted and humiliated.
2. Some people got extra powers that they don't need.

Regards.

Platyna wrote:And all that in less than a month. ..

Hum ...

I guess it took years to some of us to face (and try to deal with) the reality of our previous situation :



Regards (or not ...) ?

Lt. KLAG [24th.KDF] wrote: I guess it took years to some of us to face (and try to deal with) the reality of our previous situation :

Did we really change?

Nard wrote:Did we really change?

Surely not : each migration creates the same usual confusion

Forgive me for resurrecting a slightly old post but I am sad to see it come to this Plat.

Your rule was one with an iron fist that made many angry but in the end you kept TMW alive. I, for one, will truly be sad to see someone go who put so much time and effort into making sure it stuck around as long as it has.

Wish you well in your future endeavors.