Sign in to follow this  
Radni

[POLL] Should the new committee of suggestions members be public information?

Poll  

179 members have voted

  1. 1. Should the committee members for suggestions ( PVP/PVE) be made public information?



Recommended Posts

Voted no, because the committee members shouldn't be getting harassed/bugged by players to get their suggestions put forward. 


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the council members are made public, draft a rule specifically saying that unsolicited PM'ing them, or other forms of unwanted excessive communication is a bannable offense after they've asked you not to.


 


Oh, wait...


 


Honestly, I don't care so much about who is on the "team", but I am interested in the suggestions that they are promoting as well as the Pro/Con summary.  That would be a more telling way of identifying potential bias than knowing who was making the list.


Edited by Hussars

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Hey, we are going to choose whoever we want, to represent your interests, and of course, you won't know who we chose"

 

Thats the part I'm not okay about this idea.

 

This.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand why people immediately assume that the work they are going to do will be concealed just because their identities are. Those are two distinctively different things...


  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A bit rude that there are at least 5 staff members who voted NO. They will know everything, they are good, so they should really delete their votes!!!


Edited by Sklo:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"It's not the people who vote that count. It's the people who count the votes."  Choosing which ideas and reasons to present is as important if not more than coming up with them. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted yes, but I can understand the reasoning for voting no.  However I believe the people who have the power to influence improvements should be public knowledge, i mean if they do get harassed there is an "Ignore" button.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Voted no, just look at this thread for the reason.....


  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A bit rude that there are at least 5 staff members who voted NO. They will know everything, they are good, so they should really delete their votes!!!

Not sure if you were being sarcastic or not, but being staff doesn't mean you automatically get access to everything. There is absolutely no way anyone can tell at this point if any staff will get to see those forums, if it was decided that the board will be private.

Personally I think it's better to keep everything behind closed doors in the beginning so committee members can say what they want without being harassed for every bit of opinion they have. Once it is decided to implement (or not implement) it, the suggestion and its discussion can just be put on a public board so everyone can see what was said. No big pressure from the public, and people can still clearly see if any committee members are abusing their position.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not trying to argue the point or call anyone out, but the wording of the announcement made it sound like they wouldn't be providing their opinion, but simply rolling up the "hot topics" and a simple summary of pros/cons of the suggestion.  Or am I misreading/understanding the point?

 

 


So in the interest of this, we are enlisting help to process the suggestions thread. And yes, a group has already gathered for this though it is still in the process of formally starting.

This will help us to get more summarized suggestions with pros and cons from a player perspective, cross kingdoms and pvp, pve standpoint.

Those enlisted will only help propagate suggestions from the forum and will not make new suggestions themselves in the group.

As suggestions will be summarized with points from everyones perspective any bias will find its balance from other parties.

Edited by Hussars

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Voted yes because I want to make sure all factions on all servers are represented. In example JK epic has nothing to do with JK Chaos, so don't think for a minute that you can pick one or the other and be fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A bit rude that there are at least 5 staff members who voted NO. They will know everything, they are good, so they should really delete their votes!!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not trying to argue the point or call anyone out, but the wording of the announcement made it sound like they wouldn't be providing their opinion, but simply rolling up the "hot topics" and a simple summary of pros/cons of the suggestion. Or am I misreading/understanding the point?

Edited by Deathangel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can only imagine the debates and arguing that are bound to ensue over one person or another being on the committee. 


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It should remain secret. There its enough hate and poo flinging as it is. I don't even want to think of it going public in fear of finding all representatives being exclusively PVP vets!

Joking aside, I would feel sorry for those chosen if made public for reasons previously stated such as bribery & hatred/harassment

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I agree, in principal, that there needs to be a high degree of transparency in the process I have to wonder what sane person would want to take the job if it opens them up to the kind of criticism this community can dish out. Everyone needs to ask themselves if they'd take on the job if their identity would be public knowledge. 


 


Slightly off topic but I've heard quiet a number of comments about each kingdom having it's own representative. Excuse me if I'm wrong but I think the committee should reflect the player base and that would mean that the vast majority of it's members be pve players not pvp players so I'm not sure how that's suppose to work. The percentage of pve to pvp members should reflect the percentage of pve to pvp players. 


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slightly off topic but I've heard quiet a number of comments about each kingdom having it's own representative. Excuse me if I'm wrong but I think the committee should reflect the player base and that would mean that the vast majority of it's members be pve players not pvp players so I'm not sure how that's suppose to work. The percentage of pve to pvp members should reflect the percentage of pve to pvp players. 

 

I personally dont agree with that. Just because one server has less players then another doesnt make their ideas and thoughts less valid or worthy. I understand the thought behind it and I feel where you come from, but I dont think someones opinion should be less valid because he is on a server that happens to be a minority.

 

Besides, an account is valid on both epic and freedom and I know plenty of people who play on the same account on both clusters. Seeing the committee only "forwards" positively received suggestion forum threads, I dont think it is an issue since using your example, pve-ers are more numerous and hence have more people making suggestions to begin with.

 

A good idea is a good idea and a bad idea is a bad idea, no matter which server you play on ;)

Edited by Viti
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally dont agree with that. Just because one server has less players then another doesnt make their ideas and thoughts less valid or worthy. I understand the thought behind it and I feel where you come from, but I dont think someones opinion should be less valid because he is on a server that happens to be a minority.

 

Besides, an account is valid on both epic and freedom and I know plenty of people who play on the same account on both clusters. Seeing the committee only "forwards" positively received suggestion forum threads, I dont think it is an issue since using your example, pve-ers are more numerous and hence have more people making suggestions to begin with.

 

A good idea is a good idea and a bad idea is a bad idea, no matter which server you play on ;)

 

Id like to add, that a positive idea towards PvP is good or bad also, no matter what kingdom you are from.  Having people to represent each kingdom from PvP is the equivalent of asking a representativo for each large alliance in PvE, remember that in freedom there are conflicts too, the only diference is that we dont settle them through combat,  but people do deed over other peoples stuff, block paths... sometimes theres some griefing within the many loopholes in the rules, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some form of clarity needs to be reached, between those that run the game, and its player-base. Currently, this council seems to be more interested in any 'knock on' effects of a change to the PvP servers as regards to the the PvE servers, and its game play, and its ruleset. What needs to happen is this : A 'commissar ' needs to be elected from each kingdom, both on wild and on epic, who can sit on the council and explain any changes that may affect people on the PvE side of wurm. Because so many alterations which are directed at the PvP game also have a massive influence on the 'peaceful' side, which, quite frankly, is not fair. Seriously, If Wurm is trying to attract both PvP and PvE players to its base, then a diffusion needs to be seen, and active. 


 


 The events of last weekend, I will say, were just un-professional. This cannot continue if this game is to reallize its true potential.


  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

here's something I dont get.. granted it's probably gonna happen, and i understand the point completely.. but for people rooted in the fact that they will 100% get griefed and there's nothing we can do about it.. 


 


*Ahem* make a ruling? harassing a person on this team gets you warned, then muted, then banned, whatever bla bla bla. 


 


 


some players on serenity were always 100% sure bashur would come and destroy us, totally ruin the server with a noob army... heh, that didn't happen :) and if the names of these members are made public, i doubt they'd get harassed.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

voted yes


 


 


why have secrets from one another.


 


that never leads to better things


  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

voted yes

 

 

why have secrets from one another.

 

that never leads to better things

A better way to say it would be that there are times for obfuscating and a time for transparency...

 

Otherwise, why not share your real life name/address/bank account information everywhere you go?

 

Since the "concern" most used for this demand/request seems to be one of potential bias, if the dev's provided at least a demographic summary of the "council" showing primary server/kingdom, PVP/PVE preference, and premium or not, wouldn't this address the basic concern of where their personal bias might be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this