Players having more input upon decisions made by owners

[evi1r0n]

Hey, remember when we all agreed at the Symposium not to talk about any of the rules changes on the Boards until the rules went into effect so as not to cause confusion?

Ah, those were the days.

Dude. There's a line between nostalgia and fantasy, and that crossed it. Stuff about rules changes ending up in the general population before it happens being a preventable event?

Never happens.

Maybe it's just me but shouldn't there be a bit more transparency than is currently provided when it comes to rules discussions? Players financially support the chapters and rules changes effect us greatly. Players are a huge part of what makes this game work so why shouldn't we be in on what proposals are on the table and know what got shot down/passed? I don't see why the owners believe the huddling masses will get all brain hurt if you let us know what is being discussed. We are not idiots. Sure rumors start and misconceptions happen but that is true with any group of people. The secrecy is a little insulting.

 

[Libras]

Re: Blue colored arrow packets

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.

 

[evi1r0n]

Re: Blue colored arrow packets

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.

Agreed.

 

[Mobius]

Re: Blue colored arrow packets

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 certain level of transparency would be nice, but i balk at the idea of having a popular vote. that is, i think it would be nice to know what's on the Owner's docket, what they're discussing and voting - but having the players vote would just add too much headache for too little return. the Owners are neither elected nor are they representatives, they're entrepreneurs in a franchise. while it would make sense for them to hear and know the will of the player-base, it's not necessary to the process

 

[Shandar]

Re: Blue colored arrow packets

I agree with the expressed desire for transparency, but disagree wholeheartedly with the idea of a popular rules vote.

Plainly put, I do not believe the average player has the depth of game design knowledge and/or ability to look beyond their own situation to do what is best for the health of the game. There are of course always exceptions, else we would not have an ARC or even a successful game to be having this discussion over, but I oft find them to be rare exceptions.

 

[Shandar]

Re: Blue colored arrow packets

Ok, rereading that after posting I realize how snooty it sounds.

I still stand by it, but let it be known that I do recognize that I am both a gamer snob and a general ***.

 

[Agahi]

Re: Blue colored arrow packets

I dont think a player vote should be required, but if an owner wants his/her players to vote to decide a decision that owner should be allowed to, and not forced into secrecy imo.

 

[Inaryn]

Re: Blue colored arrow packets

Personally, I think if a decision is made that's just going to affect a game mechanic, it's not something the playership necessarily needs to know about until the change goes into effect. However, if it's something that has the potential to hit player wallets, such as this one (what fabric you're buying and making packets out of,) the players should probably hear about it sooner rather than later so that they can adjust before the ruling becomes official.

 

[jpariury]

Re: Blue colored arrow packets

Coca-cola doesn't have the people drinking it vote on what ingredients to use. Monopoly wasn't written based on what everyone wanted to do, and hasn't changed its rules based on popular usage (Free Parking still gets you nothing). To be honest, it's pretty interesting that chapter owners get to vote on the rules at all. To a larger extent, think of how hard it is to organize your adventuring party to go on a mod. Now multiply that by a few hundred. LARP rules by popular vote is a terrible idea, imo.

 

[Talen]

Re: Blue colored arrow packets

Coca-cola doesn't have the people drinking it vote on what ingredients to use. Monopoly wasn't written based on what everyone wanted to do, and hasn't changed its rules based on popular usage (Free Parking still gets you nothing). To be honest, it's pretty interesting that chapter owners get to vote on the rules at all. To a larger extent, think of how hard it is to organize your adventuring party to go on a mod. Now multiply that by a few hundred. LARP rules by popular vote is a terrible idea, imo.

Agreed. Having player representatives might well be a good idea- but total democracy and rules-making shouldn't mix for a LARP.

 

[Morai]

Re: Blue colored arrow packets

Coca-cola doesn't have the people drinking it vote on what ingredients to use. Monopoly wasn't written based on what everyone wanted to do, and hasn't changed its rules based on popular usage (Free Parking still gets you nothing). To be honest, it's pretty interesting that chapter owners get to vote on the rules at all. To a larger extent, think of how hard it is to organize your adventuring party to go on a mod. Now multiply that by a few hundred. LARP rules by popular vote is a terrible idea, imo.

Coca-Cola changed their recipe on April 23, 1985. People protested and supposedly rioted (though I can't find specific instances of actual riots). The public outcry was so severe though that Coca-Cola brought back it's original recipe on July 11, 1985, now called "Coca Cola Classic".

~Joe

 

[Robb G]

Re: Blue colored arrow packets

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.

why? because you want a say? it's not "fair"? i disagree. they paid the money to sign the contract to become an owner. they pay the money and operating costs to run the chapter. Regardless of how much a player pays to play his/her chapter, chapter hop, donate, pay for costuming and supplies, it is dwarfed by the time, effort, and money it takes to run a chapter. If they want to get more player feedback and act as if the alliance is a republic, great... if they want to act as a dictator, that's fine too. it's their decision to a certain extent. of coarse they still need to abide by the by-laws of the alliance and not piss off all the other chapter owners at the same time.

 

[markusdark]

I would love to know what everyone is thinking about doing but having run an MMO, I know that the moment information gets out about a change that the designers are just considering, a whole lot of flame goes up - with half thinking it's a great idea and half thinking it sucks. No matter what decision is made, you will get a strong group opposed to it. This is a case of where the owners do need to decide what they think is best for the game - which isn't always what is best for the players. In fact, I have witnessed more than one LARP go up in flames as it deviated from its original course to appease players.

However, the one thing I don't like about the process is that it is possible for a chapter owner to shut down a player's suggestion before it ever reaches the ARC. If a player wishes to submit an idea for a rules change, addition or removal, I don't believe the chapter owner should be able to veto it before other owners have had a chance to look it over.

 

[jpariury]

Re: Blue colored arrow packets

Coca-Cola changed their recipe on April 23, 1985. People protested and supposedly rioted (though I can't find specific instances of actual riots). The public outcry was so severe though that Coca-Cola brought back it's original recipe on July 11, 1985, now called "Coca Cola Classic".

Yes, that's called "We don't like your product, we're going to buy a different one". People didn't pick the original formula, they didn't pick the modified one, and they didn't pick the one for New Coke. A select group did all that, and people voted with their spending. I would suggest that, similarly, players can vote by their purchase and/or support of the Alliance game. Sure, you make your opinion known to the people that actually do the formulating of the drink/rules, but the power of actual deciding occurs in their hands.

Mark,

Who says you have to bring your proposal to only one chapter owner?

 

[Libras]

The players also pay the money to play in the owner's chapter and keep it afloat. They should be able to know if their voice will be heard and matter or they'll be seen as dollar signs with boffer weapons.
Last I heard, the Alliance was about providing an entertaining and fun experience first and being a business second.

 

[Vazhi]

I would love to know what everyone is thinking about doing but having run an MMO, I know that the moment information gets out about a change that the designers are just considering, a whole lot of flame goes up - with half thinking it's a great idea and half thinking it sucks. No matter what decision is made, you will get a strong group opposed to it. This is a case of where the owners do need to decide what they think is best for the game - which isn't always what is best for the players. In fact, I have witnessed more than one LARP go up in flames as it deviated from its original course to appease players.

However, the one thing I don't like about the process is that it is possible for a chapter owner to shut down a player's suggestion before it ever reaches the ARC. If a player wishes to submit an idea for a rules change, addition or removal, I don't believe the chapter owner should be able to veto it before other owners have had a chance to look it over.

That may be true, but the right team of people can handle it like champs. The people at HiRez who did Global Agenda are amazing and have full disclosure. They talk openly and directly to their community base and a couple of them, including the ceo, even troll the forums on occasion. It works for them. I really think that the decision between transparency and secrecy comes down to the culture of the community created by players and owners alike. If a decision is made toward transparency I wouldn't necessarily suggest that players have direct control, but it would be nice to know that our input is being considered even if not implemented.

That said, I won't claim to know which way would be better in this case. I would have to agree though that in situations where decisions affect a player's wallet it is wise to let them know ahead of time before they waste a bunch of money on 50 yards of green plaid cloth and purple streamers.

 

[Robb G]

The players also pay the money to play in the owner's chapter and keep it afloat. They should be able to know if their voice will be heard and matter or they'll be seen as dollar signs with boffer weapons.
Last I heard, the Alliance was about providing an entertaining and fun experience first and being a business second.

This would be a personal issue between you and your chapter owner then. If he/she wants to make you feel like your voice matters, then you're fine.

 

[jpariury]

I dislike the idea of playing a game where the rules were selected because they were popular. I'd rather play a game where the rules were selected because they reflect how the authors want the world to work and it is good for the game.

 

[Libras]

I dislike the idea of playing a game where the rules were selected because they were popular.

Isn't voting on them behind closed doors just as much of a popular vote as a "mechanic and balance" vote as if it were public? Owners aren't immune to bias because they also play the game and are human.

 

[jpariury]

Isn't voting on them behind closed doors just as much of a popular vote as a "mechanic and balance" vote as if it were public? Owners aren't immune to bias because they also play the game and are human.

No, less of the populace voting means the result will be less popular.

You forget, I'm somewhat surprised that owners get a vote at all. It makes a little-bit of sense to me, since they're the ones responsible for doing a lot of the creative legwork, but honestly, I'd rather the rules were written in whole without popular opinion because the creator(s) of the game decided that's how they wanted the game to work.