Players having more input upon decisions made by owners

Talen

Adept
Re: Blue colored arrow packets

Libras said:
I think there should be full transparency and maybe even a popular vote as long as the voter has an active membership.
At least allow the chapter owners to talk to their players about the issues up for vote so they can actually vote based on the people's opinions and no just their's.
A popular vote is a fool's method- you'll then have entire chapters who feel that "their vote" didn't matter when the majority decides to put through a rules change they hate. Acrimony will then ensue.

But players definitely should be able to talk to their chapter owners about significant rules change proposals in advance. In the end, the vote of the owners should be the only ones that matter. In addition, issues that the owners may not have considered in making such changes may be discovered by the playerbase, and hence reduce the number of Bad Ideas that make it to the next edition.
 

Gilwing

Baron
Alliance Logistics
jpariury said:
One event is, frankly, a piss-poor method of playtesting. How many times has one chapter or another had some LCO effect that they thought was the shiz because of a single event in which they used it, but was later found to be broken over time or by other teams? Strategies, flaws, and imbalances tend to take months to become evident. Geography limits how many big brains you can get in on methods to test and stress any given change. Plus, it costs money and time that most chapters are loathe to spend on one-offs. I don't see your method of playtesting as viable or effective.
My example was not of what a play test is. I merely stated that there is no play test in Alliance. My example reflects the problems with not play testing rules.
gilwing said:
If some one decided to have an "event" (no xp but maybe gs/ds) to play test it. This could have been found.
This is an example of what a Play test would be...play and testing the new rules.

I think the excuse of "I don't want the players to know because they will get confused or because they will take advantage of the change" is a very poor and lame excuse to give. How many new editions have us old school players gone through (A few events ago two OS players were talking about what removed an amnesia and the duration). As I mentioned before, people knew about the change in level and power of purify. I watched people go crazy over npc item picks to grab purify. When asked why I was told by them.

Some changes have already leaked out (see topic on arrows).
 

jpariury

Duke
Gilwing said:
My example was not of what a play test is.
gilwing said:
If some one decided to have an "event" (no xp but maybe gs/ds) to play test it. This could have been found.
This is an example of what a Play test would be...play and testing the new rules.
Your statement makes no sense. My response was to that exact thing. As I said, one event in one chapter or region does not a playtest make.

To expand on it a bit: in order for it to be a viable playtest, imo, the rule should be in effect for a year or two, and played that way across all chapters. If it becomes undesirable, remove it. So that everyone is on the same page about what rules will be in use during that period, they should all be documented in some sort of compiled ruleset, and published for use.

Oh hey, we already do that.
 

Dave

Artisan
Mobius said:
this is true, and it makes a lot of sense what you say. but, i've got to believe that the agenda for the National Symposium (where most of the rules are voted into being) is available for at least a few months ahead of time. it would be simple enough to post them on the boards and distribute print-outs at the games. this way, those who care and want to give input could contact their owners with opinions/ideas and those who don't could just recycle. if nothing else, there are a lot of clever people players and they might have some good ideas, or an Owner's vote could be informed through different insight/experience
Mobius, I was at the Symposium, so I will address the reasons of why they're not publicly available.

* The rules are being fine combed through ARC to make sure there are not obvious loop-holes that owners/proxies did not see (such as the fortress spell stopping a Magic Storm, which was not the intent).

* Not to confuse everybody which rule is active. Arrow packets have been made aware that they are changing to blue. However, that rule is not the current one, and while people who check the forums are more people who are involved with the game, the casual player overhearing the discussion may think this is immediate. Rumors fly around and then some chapters are throwing blue packets for arrows before the rule is effective. Remember how everyone thought when you refit Arcane Armor you "began to glow"? Think of what happens when all 20 rules clarifications/changes are publicly aware but not in effect until a later time.

* Not every marshal attended the symposium (actually, only a very select few did). Some marshals don't even read the boards.

* We don't want a "this is how charm works now" compared to "but the intent is this according to what the rule will be in a 2 months, so it should work this way."

Staff and ARC members are doing their best to let you know in advance for certain things that need to be told in advance (such as "don't make 4000 arrow packets with strings"). We need to rely that they're doing it for the best intent, whether or not we like it.

-dave-
 
you know maybe its less of a hay evry one on the boards vote on this...
and more of a evry chapter gives this out to the player bace and gets the voter cards back a munth lader....

the oners can right out a document that gos out a cross all chapters the same.
it talkes a bout what topics need a vote on and what the options are
then it can be handed out, e-mails, posted and what not. to reach all the players
informing players that if they would like a copy of it and to read it and return a vote card to there owner vea what ever means thay like email or handed in...
the owners can tally up the vote and prsent the outcomes %s or #s to the symposium as the general vote.
hell the chapter ouers can vote too bbut this would be more fair to the geral players to feal at least a little like thay get to have part in shapting and forming the beloved pass time that thay pay to suport.
vote-ing is an option that is all we want, you don't have to go in to the poles and vote but its nice to have it as a option where we can put are voices in to the mix if we want to.

a printed out document talkign a bout the topic and the otipns and small slip of paper any one can fill out and return might be a way to go a bout it....

somthign as easy as saying

name: __________ chapter: _________
hay this is the topics at hand
1........
2........
3........
4........
5........
6........
7........

the topics can cover anything
change options
packets
new rules
rule change
call change
new options

please return your vote-ing card by the ..........
pick one per line

1 a. b. c. d.
2 blue yellow white black
3 strings no sting
4 yes no
5 change stay the same
6 enforce disregard
7 charge free
 

phedre

Squire
And who's going to deal with making sure everyone gets a copy, and it gets returned, tallied, the information processed into cohesive data, distributed to the owners, ARC members, Ritual Committee members, and other pertinent national committees?

That's a huge job. One that volunteers aren't going to be able to handle in a timely fashion.

What seems like a simple idea is actually a time and resource consuming process that will only confuse people about a simple fact: the Alliance is not a democracy. The owners paid a franchise fee (and pay yearly dues) and it is their and only their concern how to run the business they own under the agreement they signed.

If a rules change goes through and you don't like it, bring it up to your owner or the proxy they sent to Symposium, and they can probably tell you why it got voted in the way it did. And tell them you're unhappy and they can bring it up either on the owners boards, with the ARC, or Ritual Committee, or whatever the appropriate channel is.
 

Libras

Scholar
So we have to be reactive to bad decisions instead of nipping it in the bud with proactivity?
 

phedre

Squire
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Possible solutions that are being presented are the product of being told that democracy is always the way things should be from the time most of us were in kindergarten.

If you want to be that active? Petition to become an ARC member. Open your own chapter. Get on the Ritual Committee. Most of the people in those positions have years of experience playing the game, have seen numerous sets of rules changes, and have a good understanding of what changes will do to the balance of the game.

Popular vote isn't a reasonable option... try keeping track of every active player. What constitutes active? Games per year? Percentage of a season played in a given chapter? Your name being in a database? If it's the name-in-database option, my name is in 5. Do I get 5 votes? Who decides which chapter accounts for my vote? Who gets to chase down the people who didn't vote, are 4 people going to call/email/text/PM me looking for information that would be redundant and contaminate your data pool?

Open a line of communication with the owner of your chapter or an ARC/Rit Committee member first. They might be willing to discuss what's going on.
 

Wraith

Newbie
phedre said:
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Possible solutions that are being presented are the product of being told that democracy is always the way things should be from the time most of us were in kindergarten.

If you want to be that active? Petition to become an ARC member. Open your own chapter. Get on the Ritual Committee. Most of the people in those positions have years of experience playing the game, have seen numerous sets of rules changes, and have a good understanding of what changes will do to the balance of the game.
Is the popular vote reasonable? No. Is wanting to at least know what changes are being discussed so we can bring up our opinions to our owners reasonable? Yes. In a game we players put dollars and hours of labor into supporting, things that make major changes to the way the game is played are a big deal and one would think that giving the players a chance to at least tell their local owners that a change will effect their desire to keep giving him money and donations would be a good thing.

The stack of addendum and ARC clarifications over in the Rules forum makes it pretty clear that more eyes staring at a rule will turn up the issues faster, and frankly from a business standpoint we're not without competition who would love to have more people looking for another game to play.
 

Libras

Scholar
Wraith said:
Is wanting to at least know what changes are being discussed so we can bring up our opinions to our owners reasonable? Yes. In a game we players put dollars and hours of labor into supporting, things that make major changes to the way the game is played are a big deal and one would think that giving the players a chance to at least tell their local owners that a change will effect their desire to keep giving him money and donations would be a good thing.

The stack of addendum and ARC clarifications over in the Rules forum makes it pretty clear that more eyes staring at a rule will turn up the issues faster, and frankly from a business standpoint we're not without competition who would love to have more people looking for another game to play.
Even if the popular vote isn't a "good idea", we do have the right as, in a way, investors in our chapters to know what's going on.
From looking at all of the ARC and various clarifications, the system is damaged and no one bothered to fix it because it got painted over instead of repaired.

Phedre, by suggesting we need more ARC members / owners / rit committee members it just proves that the system is broken because in order to know what's going on you need to have a position of power. The information needs to be available if someone wants to know instead of relying on leaks and a faulty non-disclosure agreement.
I would rather have the chunks of information because that way the now more people looking will be fast to fix any patches and find loopholes that need to be removed. Just make a part of the board separated for In Development issues and anyone can come in and see the information if they wish. (I'm sure it'll get a lot of traffic and new regulars, seeing the activity of our normal Rules forum.) In a way, it'll be a public, virtual, discussion-only symposium. One of the concerns of the rules symposium is time and getting everyone together, correct? Problem solved. There will surely be more discussion, but there will be less time constraint an it will be more efficient.
 

phedre

Squire
Here's the thing:

We don't have a "right" to know. The owners, and national committee members have the "right" to know because it is a responsibility they've been granted. We don't own stock in our chapters, or hold any sort of voting rights... I'm not saying the system is perfect, but once you grant the illusion to the player base that they can decide what rules changes go into effect, you invite more problems.

And I'm not suggesting we necessarily need more owners/heads of rules/ARC members/Rit Committee members. Only that they are in the know and if you want to have a say, try to be one. That's like saying there should be more Congress or Senate members because you want to make a difference so you should run for public office. There is a system. Try to work within it before drastically altering it.

Or talk to the owners/Rit committee/ARC members of your chapter. See if there's anything on the table they'd like to discuss. Begin dialogue. That's the way to change things in government.
 

Robb G

Baron
I'm with Phedre. there are already ways for players to help shape the game. It's pretty much your own fault if you're not a part of those. Yes, joining a national committee takes some expertise in that area, but I'm sure if you showed enough enthusiasm, that committee would consider you for membership. Of coarse that does mean you have to do more work and you have to do that work with the other committee members and understand that "what you want" and "what's best for the game" are not always going to match up.

I have nothing but extreme respect for the committee members out there because I have seen first hand how much they bust their asses for absolutely nothing but love of the game and trying to make things better.
 

Vazhi

Newbie
No popular vote. Fine with me. Wouldn't want one. The fact that those that need to know about the upcoming possible arrow packet change will be informed is good to hear, though I personally had only heard about it on the forums and it has since become obvious it was an unintended leak. Let me ask a straight forward question here then:

How much time passes between when rules decisions have been gone over with a fine tooth comb and deemed acceptible for public release and the time that those rules are considered in live play. More to the point, is there currently a period of time set aside for those that care to keep up to date on such things to have a chance to peruse these decisions before they go live? I'm wondering if perhaps this issue is a moot point and all that is really needed is education of the players as to where they might look to see the upcoming changes ahead of time of their enactment. Maybe it's simply a matter of taking the time to itemize a list of decisions approved for release with effective implementation dates affixed and allowing for easy access to these lists.

Even just instruction to check existing errata page on the website, which I can only assume must exist somewhere, would be helpful. It would be especially so if perhaps an upcoming errata section were added if it does not currently exist. Perhaps put out a challenge for someone to "break" the upcoming errata and give gobbies for finding these exploits and even more gobbies if they can come up with a possible way to close the loophole that is found to be viable. Of course I can see how it may be undesirable to promote people to try to do so, but it's unrealistic to think that it doesn't happen anyhow. This would approximate the effects of a playtest without having to spend any real resources.

I must admit some ignorance so if it seems like I'm just stirring up trouble here my apologies. I am simply interested in the process and in seeing this game have as much success as is possible.
 

Gilwing

Baron
Alliance Logistics
jpariury said:
To expand on it a bit: in order for it to be a viable playtest, imo, the rule should be in effect for a year or two, and played that way across all chapters. If it becomes undesirable, remove it. So that everyone is on the same page about what rules will be in use during that period, they should all be documented in some sort of compiled ruleset, and published for use.

Oh hey, we already do that.
That not play testing that is the Microsoft excuse. Put it out and let every one deal with it. Oops it wasn't supposed to work that way. That is not a test. That is implementation.
 
Top