Summit Response timing

[General Halcones]

Come on Wordy. That's absolutely ridiculous - you'll kill raiding, clearly what you want. We've been through this so many times, and I really don't think this is the place.

[Sichuan Pepper]

We both know there is a snowballs chance in hell of it happening Halc
Got your interest though.

[Eist]

In this game's long history, there is absolutely no precedent to suggest that anything short of removing regions altogether would kill raiding. I do wish people would stop using this "scare quote" because it's unhelpful and downright nonsense. Quite simply, if there are regions to be raided, there will be raiders to raid them.

I think this change would be refreshing considering almost all raiders currently use next to zero tactics or intrigue in their movements. (Europeia somewhat excluded.)

[Frisbeeteria]

No threadjacking, please. We're not going to institute a major change based on a single comment from a single player, so take it elsewhere if you want to discuss it further.

[Galiantus II]

This is just a suggestion, but if we want to continue discussion just so when the summit opens up again the representatives have something to really debate and hound out, we could start discussing ideas on a problem-by-problem basis. So instead of discussing ideas as ideas, discuss them in the context of "how can we solve this problem". That way, similar ideas could be debated and considered side by side instead of individually. Obviously we should also have a thread where players can go to officially place their ideas, but further discussion should be on problem-by-problem basis' in an environment of competition, instead of a spurratic "this sounds neat" environment, if we want to solve the current problems with the invasion game.

In the way of evaluating ideas, this gives us a 'rubric' of sorts to judge ideas. Some ideas would probably solve certain problems very well, but at the same time, worsen other problems or create new ones. Maybe this could be done in conjunction with the way we are doing things now, or we could limit these threads to representatives. But in some way, we do need to shift some of the focus to solving the problems we know exist.

[Belschaft]

I think we might as well acknowledge that the summit, whilst well-intentioned, has failed, and move on to a plan B.

[Eist]

I think we might as well acknowledge that the summit, whilst well-intentioned, has failed, and move on to a plan B.

The player-generated-idea to mod-response ratio is extremely dissatisfying and disheartening to me.

[Cerian Quilor]

This is just a suggestion, but if we want to continue discussion just so when the summit opens up again the representatives have something to really debate and hound out, we could start discussing ideas on a problem-by-problem basis. So instead of discussing ideas as ideas, discuss them in the context of "how can we solve this problem". That way, similar ideas could be debated and considered side by side instead of individually. Obviously we should also have a thread where players can go to officially place their ideas, but further discussion should be on problem-by-problem basis' in an environment of competition, instead of a spurratic "this sounds neat" environment, if we want to solve the current problems with the invasion game.

In the way of evaluating ideas, this gives us a 'rubric' of sorts to judge ideas. Some ideas would probably solve certain problems very well, but at the same time, worsen other problems or create new ones. Maybe this could be done in conjunction with the way we are doing things now, or we could limit these threads to representatives. But in some way, we do need to shift some of the focus to solving the problems we know exist.

Except that people disagree on what the problem is.

[Galiantus II]

This is just a suggestion, but if we want to continue discussion just so when the summit opens up again the representatives have something to really debate and hound out, we could start discussing ideas on a problem-by-problem basis. So instead of discussing ideas as ideas, discuss them in the context of "how can we solve this problem". That way, similar ideas could be debated and considered side by side instead of individually. Obviously we should also have a thread where players can go to officially place their ideas, but further discussion should be on problem-by-problem basis' in an environment of competition, instead of a spurratic "this sounds neat" environment, if we want to solve the current problems with the invasion game.

In the way of evaluating ideas, this gives us a 'rubric' of sorts to judge ideas. Some ideas would probably solve certain problems very well, but at the same time, worsen other problems or create new ones. Maybe this could be done in conjunction with the way we are doing things now, or we could limit these threads to representatives. But in some way, we do need to shift some of the focus to solving the problems we know exist.

Except that people disagree on what the problem is.

I first thought of listing the problems in my post, but I shied away from doing so. You definitely have a point, though: maybe we need to be arguing for what the problems we wish to fix are before we discuss ideas. Or maybe a moderator could define the most common problems, or players could start their own threads for the problems. Maybe it's too late to be discussing this.

[Cerian Quilor]

That's one of the things we did when this was all getting started, back when threads galore in Technical were being made to debate the finer points of these ideas.

[Unibot III]

I think we might as well acknowledge that the summit, whilst well-intentioned, has failed, and move on to a plan B.

I think the tight format makes it difficult to achieve anything constructive. The free-flow discussions follow into circular debates, but what's being debated is usually fairly clear -- so from an observer's stand-point I generally know where I stand after I read even a page or two of those discussions. But in a format without debate and with wide-open questions, it kind of becomes window-shopping -- it's a kaleidoscope of opinions with not enough focus.

I agree with CQ that there's not enough acceptance over what the problems are -- frankly there will never be, the TITO Rep. isn't going to agree with UDL Reps over what are the problems facing NS, we have categorically different perspective on defending and our organizations focus on different stuff. Moreover, we have niches being represented in the mix whose own R/D problems haven't really been identified before and brought into discussions -- but are their problems, the major problems facing R/D or a niche problem?

I dunno, if I were speaker I would ask a more straightforward question, accumulating the few reoccurring problems identified by our reps -- then ask them to prioritize these problems on the basis of the numbers of actors in R/D affected by the problem, how damaging the problem is to R/D and finally, how many other problems are caused because of it.

For example:

1. Piling.
2. Lack of stealth raiding / Abundance of tag-raiding.
3. Diminished capacity of natives to be involved in their own liberation.
4. R/D Accessibility issues.
4. Over-stability of Feeders.
5. Exclusion of The Security Council from Gameplay.

With some justification for their prioritization, perhaps it would be clearer to organizers, what the major priorities of the conference should be. I would suspect a few of the reps will be able to make a stronger case than the others for their prioritization.

[Ballotonia]

I think we might as well acknowledge that the summit, whilst well-intentioned, has failed, and move on to a plan B.

The player-generated-idea to mod-response ratio is extremely dissatisfying and disheartening to me.

Most mods/admins are not participants in the summit, on purpose.

Ballotonia

[Cerian Quilor]

Not sure what you mean by 5. How is the SC excluded from gameplay?

[Eist]

The player-generated-idea to mod-response ratio is extremely dissatisfying and disheartening to me.

Most mods/admins are not participants in the summit, on purpose.

Ballotonia

Yes, I know. My point is that because mods/admin are not participating (by and large and by design) it feels like a ship without a sail.

[Unibot III]

Not sure what you mean by 5. How is the SC excluded from gameplay?

That was echo'd by Fratt and Skydip: the idea that the SC isn't involved enough in Gameplay. Whereas it could be a major political forum for us. I think it's true, but a niche problem.

[Frisbeeteria]

Once again, the threadjackers have failed to realize that the [NEWTOPIC*] button was placed on the forums for a reason. Since the timing question is very much up in the air, I see no reason to keep this thread open. Should we have reason to make new announcements, I imagine that I'll have to create my very own [NEWTOPIC*] on the subject.

we could start discussing ideas on a problem-by-problem basis.

There are many such threads in Technical. Have at it.

I think the tight format makes it difficult to achieve anything constructive.

Go ahead and start your own discussion then. Personally, I find your tendency to pontificate endlessly completely non-constructive. We were hoping a new format with limited discussion might prove more fruitful, as the prior endless circular arguments in Gameplay and Technical have failed to do so. Going back to a failed model is usually a guarantor of failure ... but go ahead if you wish. I won't promise that anyone else read it.

I think we might as well acknowledge that the summit, whilst well-intentioned, has failed, and move on to a plan B.

If you have fresh suggestions, start a thread. In the meantime, this one has served it's purpose and will now be locked.