Comments on Summit Nominations

by **Frisbeeteria** » Tue Oct 30, 2012 1:05 pm

Please use this thread instead of the Self-Nominations thread for commentary on nominees or the nomination process.

Please start a new thread if/when it becomes apparent that a threadjack has the potential to become a new discussion topic.

by **Andacantra** » Tue Oct 30, 2012 3:38 pm

Not a comment about a nomination, and I don't really want to create a whole new thread to point this out, but the terms of reference have a "making sense" error.

"This game generally consists of three types of player: invaders, who attempt to capture regions, natives, who occupy regions under attack, and defenders, who attempt to repel invaders from regions and return them to native control."
I only make that two. Although I would imagine that Natives were probably the original intended third type.

Edit: ignore me. Sleepy Abbey is sleepy. *decides that going to bed is wise*

by **Unibot III** » Tue Oct 30, 2012 3:39 pm

Just to clarify, is this self-nomination? Most people seem to be reading this as requiring self-nomination.. maybe I'm missing where it says this.

by **Mahaj** » Tue Oct 30, 2012 3:40 pm

Unibot III wrote:Just to clarify, is this self-nomination? Most people seem to be reading this as requiring self-nomination.. maybe I'm missing where it says this.

"Self-nominations for RD Summit Stakeholders"

its the topic title :/

by **Unibot III** » Tue Oct 30, 2012 3:42 pm

Mahaj wrote:
Unibot III wrote:Just to clarify, is this self-nomination? Most people seem to be reading this as requiring self-nomination.. maybe I'm missing where it says this.

"Self-nominations for RD Summit Stakeholders"

its the topic title :/

Bahahah, I didn't notice the title, to be honest. :blush:

by **Unibot III** » Tue Oct 30, 2012 4:02 pm

Sorry Fris for posting a comment in your nomination thread, feel free to delete them. Didn't realize there was a Comments thread.

by **NERVUN** » Tue Oct 30, 2012 4:06 pm

Unibot III wrote:Sorry Fris for posting a comment in your nomination thread, feel free to delete them. Didn't realize there was a Comments thread.

Moved over to here.

by **Unibot III** » Tue Oct 30, 2012 4:07 pm

NERVUN wrote:
Unibot III wrote:Sorry Fris for posting a comment in your nomination thread, feel free to delete them. Didn't realize there was a Comments thread.

Moved over to here.

Thanks NERV!

by **JonathanAtopia** » Tue Oct 30, 2012 4:12 pm

I am supporting Unibot II for this noimantion process.

by **Skyrim Diplomacy** » Tue Oct 30, 2012 4:13 pm

JonathanAtopia wrote:I am supporting Unibot II for this noimantion process.

About that.... :lol:

by **Erastide** » Tue Oct 30, 2012 5:13 pm

Deleted as it's unnecessary.

by **Johz** » Tue Oct 30, 2012 5:21 pm

Skyrim Diplomacy wrote:
JonathanAtopia wrote:I am supporting Unibot II for this noimantion process.

About that....

I think we should start a campaign. Get Unibot II a seat. Who know, if the two of them meet, what might happen?

by **Frisbeeteria** » Tue Oct 30, 2012 5:59 pm

JonathanAtopia wrote:I am supporting Unibot II for this noimantion process.

Apart from the minor flaw that we're into Incarnation #3 of the Unibot franchise ...

... your support is not relevant. To clarify, I'm not talking about the specific player who posted this - I'm talking about players in general.

This isn't a popularity contest. Participants will be chosen by a mod/admin selection process based on a variety of factors, including area of representation. Chief among them is the ability to make their points clearly and concisely. It's incredibly easy to get a 15-page discussion topic on virtually any suggestion. It's much harder for all sides to have their say and distill that information into a grand total of 10-12 posts per topic. That's why we've set things up this way, so each Rep can evaluate the questions, read the comments, and then present his/her position in 300 words or so. All the usual thread content of bickering and back-and-forth arguments will happen "off-stage". Once those arguments are done, the Reps will distill the essence and edit in their case. [violet] will then be able to read a fairly short topic, and be able to fairly quickly decide whether it's a practical idea or not.

We're going to take player input on the questions to be asked. We're going to let the Reps create discussion topics to gather opinions from their friends (and arguments from their enemies, if desired). Player participation will be widespread, but the ultimate outcome will be a distillation of all sources into concise language. If you can't write concisely (and we all know that it's not in everyone's toolbox), you're not the right player for the job of Rep.

by **Jamie Anumia** » Wed Oct 31, 2012 2:48 am

Out of interest, is there a limit of how many people will be allowed to participate in the summit?

by **Skyrim Diplomacy** » Wed Oct 31, 2012 6:25 am

Jamie Anumia wrote:Out of interest, is there a limit of how many people will be allowed to participate in the summit?

Frisbeeteria wrote:Summit participants will be limited to a very small number of actual players, but we're not shutting anyone out of the discussion.

Not a very specific answer, but eh.

by **Milograd** » Wed Oct 31, 2012 6:28 am

Out of curiousity, is there a slot for a RPer open? Several prominent, or once prominent, RP regions have been raided, tagged, captured, and destroyed in the past year, and I know that many of us have been wanting to discuss the situation in a venue like this for a very long time now. Admittedly, we're not especially relevant to R/D's dynamic in the grand scheme of things, but we do have a strong opinion regarding the way R/D scene has been as of late and would appreciate an opportunity to speak about what we're thinking.

Thank you.

by **Kshrlmnt** » Wed Oct 31, 2012 6:44 am

Assuming I'm free to say this here, I do have a comment on some viewpoints that I think are essential for the summit, and my opinion of nominees for that reason.

First, I don't think we could have this without at least one person who's extremely familiar with tag/clock raiding and the mechanics behind it. There are people who know of it and people who use it, but it order to know how any possible changes will really affect its use or existence, we need someone who understands the how. And from the somewhat limited experience I have with it, I don't think there's anyone who knows it better than Halcones.

Secondly, the issue of the SC is sure to come up. The SC (Liberations especially) is incontrovertibly defender-dominated, both because and to the point that raiders don't care about it; this is also a reason why we're seeing the rise of so many anti-WA groups. I expect Unibot's a shoe-in for the more active, defender side of the debate, but there's got to be someone from the anti-WA camp to balance it out, either an anti-WA raider or someone more solely anti-WA. If admins and mods want a more equal participation in the SC, or at least for things to be more fair and less predictable, this has to be part of the discussion and have people from both sides included.

by **Ballotonia** » Wed Oct 31, 2012 6:56 am

Kshrlmnt wrote:I expect Unibot's a shoe-in for the more active, defender side of the debate, [...]

How so? May I remind you: "We are looking for individuals who can represent a particular point of view (e.g. tag raiding, mass defending, recruiter, native...), and not necessarily an organization such as TBR or UDL."

It's far more important that someone can state a viewpoint eloquently than who is in what organization (or may even lead it). It would be a shame if excellently qualified people would not self-nominate just because they would be (mistakenly) presume that the 'slots' for a particular side would be auto-reserved for a specific individual due to having an in-game position of power. We really don't care who runs which organization. We care about having a useful summit.

Ballotonia

by **Kshrlmnt** » Wed Oct 31, 2012 7:21 am

It's not a given, true, but I'm assuming that if we're discussing the WA, he's a strong candidate.

by **Sedgistan** » Wed Oct 31, 2012 7:28 am

Milograd wrote:Out of curiousity, is there a slot for a RPer open?

We haven't got set slots. If you think an RPer needs to be represented, they can nominate themself, make their case, and it'll be considered.

A suggestion though - it may be best to represent the natives of those regions that want nothing to do with gameplay (or raiding/defending), as that's a broader group. There are probably issues players, WAers, NSGers and various others who hold a similar viewpoint.

by **Sedgistan** » Wed Oct 31, 2012 7:44 am

Kshrlmnt wrote:It's not a given, true, but I'm assuming that if we're discussing the WA, he's a strong candidate.

We're not choosing the participants based on how well-known they are, or how high up their position is within an organisation. You shouldn't assume that any individual is near-guaranteed a place, because that is definitely not the case.

by **Crushing Our Enemies** » Wed Oct 31, 2012 9:13 am

Can we assume that since Fris is posting all these topics that Fris will be the chairman of the Summit?

by **Cerian Quilor** » Wed Oct 31, 2012 9:14 am

COE, out of curiousity, can you link me to the thread where you had those ideas about giving Natives more ability to resist/fight back?

by **Sedgistan** » Wed Oct 31, 2012 9:18 am

Crushing Our Enemies wrote:Can we assume that since Fris is posting all these topics that Fris will be the chairman of the Summit?

See:

Frisbeeteria wrote:Welcome to Stage One of the Raider / Defender Summit Conference. I'm Senior Game Moderator Frisbeeteria, and I'll be chairing this summit.

by **Crushing Our Enemies** » Wed Oct 31, 2012 9:24 am

Sedgistan wrote:
Crushing Our Enemies wrote:Can we assume that since Fris is posting all these topics that Fris will be the chairman of the Summit?

See:
Frisbeeteria wrote:Welcome to Stage One of the Raider / Defender Summit Conference. I'm Senior Game Moderator Frisbeeteria, and I'll be chairing this summit.

Ah, I think like Unibot missing the title, I may have skimmed down to the juicy bits about nominating.

Comments on Summit Nominations

Comments on Summit Nominations

Who is online