|
|
Post by Sarra on Apr 27, 2008 2:15:42 GMT -5
When we return to TotS and all start from zero though, will this not all be academic?  Good point.  |
|
|
|
Post by eviltb on Apr 27, 2008 3:49:28 GMT -5
Well I can't speak for everyone, but I haven't said anything in the Forces of Darkness forum because it says I need a password. PM sent! |
|
|
|
Post by Al on Apr 27, 2008 3:59:16 GMT -5
When we return to TotS and all start from zero though, will this not all be academic? Only if we keep the same rules guiding the selection of leaders from the old TOTS site - this is why we are talking about these here before the new site is up and running, so we can make a smooth transition from one to the other. |
|
|
|
Post by Agrarvyn on Apr 27, 2008 4:35:08 GMT -5
That is of course assuming that WH ever has time to recode the site and doesn't simply recode it exactly as before.
|
|
|
|
Post by Beowuuf on Apr 27, 2008 4:51:25 GMT -5
That is of course assuming that WH ever has time to recode the site and doesn't simply recode it exactly as before. I think a better assumption is that what is done is done and nothing will get redone. WH will rebuild the site as was, only have time to occasionally look in the other forum (or recive requests via FA) and implement solid suggestions. However, if the site is the same... Admins can change the rank spread. Admins can change the rank assignment (of special ranks) Admins can change which forums give how much or how little gold Admins are required to give class access to forums, new forums, moderator control, etc The community control who they want to make class leaders So really, the experience point and class leader debate only requires WH's input if it will be a radical departure. It's just that many of the suggestions are a radical departure, so we need to decide if we want them soon, pass them on to WH soon, get his consent soon, and then hope he has time to code the site in the near future not the far future The way people are talking, if rank structure is not wanted, then we may as well stay here and re-jig this site. Ooops, this is the class leader not experience thread - oh well, the point is still the same  |
|
|
|
Post by Al on Apr 27, 2008 5:05:33 GMT -5
I still think rank is a great idea, but will write about it in that thread
|
|
|
|
Post by Maerin on Apr 27, 2008 10:47:00 GMT -5
I still think rank is a great idea, but will write about it in that thread I do too. Where I take issue, and have taken issue both in the Rank thread and in this one, is the dysfunctional way in which rank was used on the old Tower. Rank as a representation of seniority (sort of; obviously certain people's posting habits did not result in their rank representing their seniority...and before someone asks, no, I am not talking about Beowuuf because I think he earned, and continues to earn, his place in this community) and earned merit (primarily for posting frequency, obviously) is the same as medals being essentially a representation of the same. Both were a reward. Where the problems arose lies in entitlement, and the lack of a consistent idea about where such distinctions required responsibility and whether those with those distinctions actually rose...and continued to rise....to their responsibilities. That is why this is, indeed, a class leader topic as well as a rank one. As for radical departures, I do not think there has been a suggestion yet that is particularly "radical" in the sense that Beowuuf described, mostly because we have only started talking about this and there are, in fact, very few alternative suggestions currently being discussed. And, so far as class leaders are concerned, that is not a coding concern at all, and never has been. It is a people concern, which in fact makes it more difficult to discuss frankly (pun not intended) than a "coding question" that we may or may not have any control of. |
|
|
|
Post by Ghost Bear on Apr 27, 2008 16:13:04 GMT -5
For the most part, I'm in favour of class leaders being chosen and maintained within the class itself.
The example mentioned above was the Commoners. As far as I remember, there was only ever one active Commoner, other than new members who'd not yet picked a class. So in that regard, I think the 'Class Leader' of the Commoner class was token at best.
The Kai on the other hand (used as an example because I have knowledge of the inner workings) maintained an Active list. Anyone below the rank of Grand Master who was innactive for a period of time (can't remember how long now - 3 months I think) was removed from the class.
This happened with the Supreme Masters' Council too, and certain inactive members were removed from it. This shows that self-moderation of classes can work, and work well.
I strongly disagree with any notion of removing classes, or 'enforcing' grouping together of classes. Generally the class leaders have been pretty good at recognising that a grouping would benefit the class, and this has been implemented (most specifically in the Dark Forces and MKC). I don't know if this is what's being suggested above specifically, but I thought I'd throw in my point-of-view on the subject.
Maerin: What do you mean in your last posting? Are you talking about powerposting gaining undue priviledge? Or something else? I never really saw 'rank' in a class as automatically a measure of responsibility, aside from the generic cut offs we had (at levels 10, 20, and in the case of the Kai, 36). The general consensus seems to be that the Masters and Grand Masters forums are a Bad Idea and shouldn't be reintroduced on the restored site anyway.
Did any of that make sense?
-GB
|
|
|
|
Post by Ghost Bear on Apr 29, 2008 1:42:36 GMT -5
I see Maerin's point (he PM'd me to expand on it). Here's a quick idea to throw out there for disection:
How about some sort of 'Class Leaders' Council', which monitors class leaders, makes sure they're active, and supports them if their having trouble (and yes, ultimately has power to remove them, though we of course hope it won't come to that).
This will give us a means of moderating this issue without forcing unrealistic/unwanted groupings on classes. It could also be used to organise things like inter class competitions and the like - it could be a force for positive activities as well as regulatory ones.
Thoughts?
-GB
|
|
|
|
Post by Beowuuf on Apr 29, 2008 1:48:45 GMT -5
I think given the size of the forum, that sounds like the staff forum to me! No point in delegating to others. I think that amnyone in a staff position should simply keep an eye on class matters and medals, etc
Like FA did wit hthe task list, perhaps threads pointing out areas of concern even if the staffer noticing it doens't have time to do anything about it.
Edit: Wait, I think I get what you mean now. I think Al, in RP terms, was already starting to make the moves to have alliances of Dwarfs with more classes, add the MKC and we have the makings of a UN council anyway, which could be the RP term for a class leader's forum which I think you meant. So you could have the class leaders discuss interclass contests, and also raise issues and discuss any help needed by other classes
|
|
|
|
Post by eviltb on Apr 29, 2008 3:09:20 GMT -5
no offence guys but if we're gona RP a class leaders council, how are "the bad guys" gona b involved in that? From a board, non-rp perspective it sounds fine. But l dont readily see invites to the MKC going out to Ruel and Kaag postboxes (as the Council is being RP'd l wldnt expect it to either).
|
|
|
|
Post by Beowuuf on Apr 29, 2008 3:23:24 GMT -5
The MKC is only one small part of a possible UN sumit-y thing, and you can imagine the evil leaders attending simply so they can hoodwink others! And the goodies reluctantly inviting them hoping for some form of peace |
|
|
|
Post by Ghost Bear on Apr 29, 2008 4:31:38 GMT -5
I was actually thinking more along OOC lines rather than IC lines. But dealing specifically with RP issues rather than site issues. If we're happy for the site staff to take on these responsibilities, then I guess that's OK too.
-GB
|
|
|
|
Post by Al on Apr 29, 2008 7:33:29 GMT -5
Hey all, I think the idea of a class leaders group is a great one - it would allow for the passing of best practice between the classes and relieve the staff of other responsabilities. Giving this council a say in who becomes a class leader (subject, of course, to the desires of the class) would help with the managing of absent class leaders or when thier are none at all.
Great idea GB - I would like to pass a motion in support of GBs idea.
|
|
|
|
Post by Simey on Apr 29, 2008 9:58:31 GMT -5
That is of course assuming that WH ever has time to recode the site and doesn't simply recode it exactly as before. I think a better assumption is that what is done is done and nothing will get redone. WH will rebuild the site as was, only have time to occasionally look in the other forum (or recive requests via FA) and implement solid suggestions. However, if the site is the same... Admins can change the rank spread. Admins can change the rank assignment (of special ranks) Admins can change which forums give how much or how little gold Admins are required to give class access to forums, new forums, moderator control, etc The community control who they want to make class leaders So really, the experience point and class leader debate only requires WH's input if it will be a radical departure. It's just that many of the suggestions are a radical departure, so we need to decide if we want them soon, pass them on to WH soon, get his consent soon, and then hope he has time to code the site in the near future not the far future The way people are talking, if rank structure is not wanted, then we may as well stay here and re-jig this site. Ah, now this enlightens me (sorry to be so generally unenlightened). My pessimism regarding the content of these two very interesting and related threads - and I'm not sure if I'm posting this in the right one  - stems from the difference between what the community can do once they are back on TotS (and preparation for that is great) and what may well be out of our hands in terms of stuff that would have to be built into the site as WH constructs it, rather than being applied after the construction. I'm genuinely a bit nervous about the idea of handing a list of suggestions and requests to WH. Maybe I shouldn't be - he might welcome it - but he hadn't had time in many months before TotS crashed to even be present on the site, so I'm guessing that having to rebuild the whole thing from scratch is something that he could seriously do without, full stop, let alone trying to take on board a load of requested modifications. That said, it doesn't hurt to try, and it's up to him whether he has the time or inclination to follow any suggested ideas. So, as Beo says, decisions need to be made soon, and ideas shaped into solid, coherent suggestions that can then be put to WH for him to take or leave in so far as he is willing and able so to do. As for class leadership, whilst I reckon there should be a certain level of site participation stipulated beforehand, I'm with the general consensus that each class should deal with it themselves; having a class leader selected automatically by reaching a certain level only for them to go AWOL and be unreplaceable unless someone else posts like mad to catch up with them - or however it turned out on occasion - was clearly not ideal. |
|
- stems from the difference between what the community can do once they are back on TotS (and preparation for that is great) and what may well be out of our hands in terms of stuff that would have to be built into the site as WH constructs it, rather than being applied after the construction.