Advertisement
by North Nackie » Wed Sep 28, 2016 12:29 am
by Araraukar » Wed Sep 28, 2016 1:04 am
Sedgistan wrote:We want to progress we this, we are going to progress with this, but there's some internal disagreement on how exactly we are going to do so. That's still being hammered out.
It definitely hasn't been forgotten, and it hasn't been dropped either.
Apologies for absences, non-COVID health issues leave me with very little energy at times.Giovenith wrote:And sorry hun, if you were looking for a forum site where nobody argued, you've come to wrong one.
by Wrapper » Wed Sep 28, 2016 10:26 am
by Luna Amore » Wed Sep 28, 2016 9:05 pm
Araraukar wrote:Sedgistan wrote:We want to progress we this, we are going to progress with this, but there's some internal disagreement on how exactly we are going to do so. That's still being hammered out.
It definitely hasn't been forgotten, and it hasn't been dropped either.
Is there any chance that you guys could give us a date until which nothing drastic will happen? Like, say, Xmas? That'd give your side of the people involved time to discuss and for coders to try things out and so on, and for us normal people (I use the word "normal" only to imply non-mod-non-admin, not actually claiming any of us are normal ) the time to work on proposals and such, without having to fear waking up tomorrow to find that the thing you had spent ages researching and planning is now obsolete.
by Halloween Zombie Apocalypse » Wed Sep 28, 2016 11:58 pm
Luna Amore wrote:It will definitely happen before an X-mas.
by Sedgistan » Fri Sep 30, 2016 9:48 am
Separatist Peoples wrote:Sedgistan wrote:We want to progress we this, we are going to progress with this, but there's some internal disagreement on how exactly we are going to do so. That's still being hammered out.
It definitely hasn't been forgotten, and it hasn't been dropped either.
What is the internal disagreement? The players ought to weigh in, provided it isn't a coding issue.
by Separatist Peoples » Fri Sep 30, 2016 10:15 am
Sedgistan wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:What is the internal disagreement? The players ought to weigh in, provided it isn't a coding issue.
(I've been away the last week hence not replying earlier) The disagreement is between those that want to see a strict division between the mod team and Council develop (i.e. Council working independently, enforcing and deciding on its own rules, responsible for everything except certain rules reserved for the mod team) and those that prefer to have no division of the ruleset, with the mod team and Council sharing the burden and mods remaining involved in the Council long-term. The latter would allow those mods that have been deleting proposals and so on for the last few years to continue doing so; the former would limit them to enforcing certain rules (e.g. Games Mechanics violations).
by Krioval » Fri Sep 30, 2016 10:34 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:I, for one, would prefer the moderators remain involved. If the Council is going to be connected to any kind of authority, the moderators should be a part of it to ensure that the authority is appropriately utilized. Having some red names might also help balance out any perception of corruption. The mods have removed themselves from a lot of the politics in the game. Not all, but probably most. It would help to have a mod or two on the Council. /$.02.
by Gruenberg » Sat Oct 01, 2016 3:06 am
by Wallenburg » Sat Oct 01, 2016 3:10 am
The "mods that have been deleting proposals and so on for the last few years" are the problem.
Having them continuing to do so completely defeats (from the player perspective) the point of turning over rules moderation to people who actually understand the rules.
by Sciongrad » Sun Oct 02, 2016 11:03 am
Wallenburg wrote:I didn't realize you considered enforcement of GA rules a problem.
Except that isn't the common goal here. Your argument is circular in that you are insisting that we must eliminate moderator involvement in rule enforcement because doing otherwise fails to keep moderators from enforcing the rules.
by Separatist Peoples » Sun Oct 02, 2016 1:17 pm
Gruenberg wrote:booooooo
boooooooooooooooooooo
The "mods that have been deleting proposals and so on for the last few years" are the problem. Having them continuing to do so completely defeats (from the player perspective) the point of turning over rules moderation to people who actually understand the rules.
booooooooo
by Tzorsland » Sun Oct 02, 2016 4:28 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:I'm not saying the mods need to be in complete control, but they should be a part of it. If there isn't a bridge between the two groups, there isn't likely to be any improvement.
by Flanderlion » Sun Oct 02, 2016 4:59 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:Gruenberg wrote:booooooo
boooooooooooooooooooo
The "mods that have been deleting proposals and so on for the last few years" are the problem. Having them continuing to do so completely defeats (from the player perspective) the point of turning over rules moderation to people who actually understand the rules.
booooooooo
I'm not saying the mods need to be in complete control, but they should be a part of it. If there isn't a bridge between the two groups, there isn't likely to be any improvement.
by Separatist Peoples » Sun Oct 02, 2016 5:46 pm
Flanderlion wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:
I'm not saying the mods need to be in complete control, but they should be a part of it. If there isn't a bridge between the two groups, there isn't likely to be any improvement.
Bridges between the mods and the council, and bridges between the players and the council would preferably make up two of the seats of the council. If they were able to remove proposals from the queue for illegalities, would individual members be able to do it by themselves, or would it have to reviewed by another member or the whole council? Also, how will the individual council members be kept active/replaced?
by Flanderlion » Sun Oct 02, 2016 6:03 pm
Separatist Peoples wrote:Flanderlion wrote:Bridges between the mods and the council, and bridges between the players and the council would preferably make up two of the seats of the council. If they were able to remove proposals from the queue for illegalities, would individual members be able to do it by themselves, or would it have to reviewed by another member or the whole council? Also, how will the individual council members be kept active/replaced?
An elected position of any kind is quite unpopular. That has been established. Mod appointment is the only generally accepted way of appointing members.
by Wallenburg » Sun Oct 02, 2016 6:08 pm
Sciongrad wrote:Wallenburg wrote:I didn't realize you considered enforcement of GA rules a problem.
Um, not only is that a problem, but it's the problem. This entire project is a direct result of player frustration with how moderators have been enforcing the rules. Like, this thread wouldn't exist if enforcement of GA rules wasn't a problem. This project was devised with the assumption that players would generally be better prepared to rule on legality. That moderators would be significantly less involved in the meat and potatoes of actually legality rulings is literally the bedrock of this idea. I know several moderators think that they should be able to have some type of veto power or retain some significant degree of authority over legality rulings, but that is totally inconsistent with the reason this whole idea was developed.
Except that isn't the common goal here. Your argument is circular in that you are insisting that we must eliminate moderator involvement in rule enforcement because doing otherwise fails to keep moderators from enforcing the rules.
That is not what anyone is saying and you obviously know that.
by Separatist Peoples » Sun Oct 02, 2016 6:38 pm
Flanderlion wrote:Separatist Peoples wrote:
An elected position of any kind is quite unpopular. That has been established. Mod appointment is the only generally accepted way of appointing members.
Not exactly. Even in this thread it has had controversy, where people have the most incentive to have the pool of candidates limited to a few people. The actual WA itself has not been consulted at all.
by Sciongrad » Sun Oct 02, 2016 6:48 pm
Wallenburg wrote:I never thought I'd see you support total disregard of GA rules.
It really is what Gruen is saying. It's quite obvious.
Flanderlion wrote:Not exactly. Even in this thread it has had controversy, where people have the most incentive to have the pool of candidates limited to a few people. The actual WA itself has not been consulted at all.
by Talkistan » Sun Oct 02, 2016 8:04 pm
Sciongrad wrote:What does that even mean, though? Why should the WA at large be given a say? The GA game is played by the GA regulars (and anyone else that cares to participate), not the WA at large. Our opinions count for much more than any other player's. Consider the following: gameplay is about to adopt some new function that would change the raider/defender game. Should moderators give preference to a) gameplayers or b) every single person in the game, seeing as they could all potentially be impacted by the change. The obvious answer is a, because players should be given preference over non-players. And, in my opinion, this is even truer for the GA game, which is significantly less important to most players than gameplay. If regulars want an elected council, fine, that's our choice (although the consensus is currently overwhelming for appointments). But we shouldn't be encumbered by the demands of the thousands of players that don't even participate in the GA.
by Wallenburg » Sun Oct 02, 2016 8:06 pm
I said enforcement of the rules by the moderators is currently problematic, not that the rules shouldn't be enforced. You'll recall that I believe the honest mistake rule should be interpreted and enforced strictly and that violators should not only be DOS but should also be sent to bed without dinner. What I said was that if we plan on going down this road (that is, creating a council of players to rule on legality), then we must necessarily accept moderator enforcement is inadequate. Therefore, players should make the decisions on most legality issues, not moderators. I won't speak for Gruen, but I personally think that moderators should only have influence over technical legality issues or violations of the OSRS. The players should enforce the game for themselves and moderators should only be permitted to carry out the council's rulings. They shouldn't have a veto and they shouldn't be able to reverse council rulings. At most, a single moderator should be given a single vote, but the majority of the decision making discretion should lie with the players.
It really is what Gruen is saying. It's quite obvious.
It's not, unless you read what he wrote in the most literal way possible and without contextualizing it with the broader argument. He's clearly not saying what you claim he's saying.
by Sciongrad » Sun Oct 02, 2016 8:12 pm
Talkistan wrote:If you ever wondered why 90% of the WA members don't get involved in the GA, that attitude might just be part of the problem. But, I wouldn't really know, I'm mostly an outsider.
Should the Supreme Court give more preference to the ruling party, or to every potential voter? The answer is A, because career politicians should be given preference over the rest. We should not be burdened by the demands of the plebians."
by Talkistan » Sun Oct 02, 2016 8:39 pm
Sciongrad wrote:That is not an appropriate analogy. It would be more accurate say "should the Supreme Court give more preference to the parties of the case than to every potential voter." Anyone is welcome to contribute to the process of reforming the GA, just like anyone is entitled to submit an amicus curiae brief to the court. But ultimately, the court's ruling must necessarily prioritize the parties to the case, not the voters and interest groups that offered their input.
by Gruenberg » Mon Oct 03, 2016 2:06 am
Talkistan wrote:"The political game is played by the politburo of our little party and the few other participants that are not easily repelled by our petty arguments, why should the entire electorate be allowed to weigh in? Our opinions matter more than the plebians'. Should the Supreme Court give more preference to the ruling party, or to every potential voter? The answer is A, because career politicians should be given preference over the rest. We should not be burdened by the demands of the plebians."
If you ever wondered why 90% of the WA members don't get involved in the GA, that attitude might just be part of the problem. But, I wouldn't really know, I'm mostly an outsider.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Differences-In-Differences
Advertisement