GreekIdiot wrote:1. So, what we've done with the RPC last few months is great, we should keep it as such, but move requests to Moderators, entirely?
I think the current members of the Role-Play Committee are doing better than any previous version of this role, at least that I can personally remember. I think the major weakness of the Committee at the moment is having six people review every request. I don't think this is an efficient use of our time. I am open to the idea of certain requests being handled by the Committee. For example, I think it is reasonable that the Forum-Based Country Coordinator should at least be consulted on those requests. On the whole though, yes I think requests should be handled by Moderators (or whatever similar role we decide to replace them).
GreekIdiot wrote:2. Keep Moderators as is? no operators
In terms of the Moderator role, I would not make any changes to the way they function from day to day. In your proposal, there are two changes I agree with in principle: a new method of appointment, and taking the power to write the rules out of their hands. For the reasons Zanz has already mentioned, I am not sure whether the specific changes you have suggested are feasible though.
GreekIdiot wrote:3. Definitely keep the consensus thingy for both Mods and RPC, so each group can help each other in case of disagreements?
I think majority decision should be sufficient in both cases personally. I think consideration needs to be given to what this means in the case of Operators/Moderators in particular, since there are never likely to be more than three. I disagree that they should defer to the Role-Play Committee though. If they can't agree, it should go up the hierarchy.
GreekIdiot wrote:4. What about alternating mods and rpc?
I am assuming you mean the idea of rotating members by this. I agree with the idea of having set terms but I think players should be able to serve for an indefinite period of time. The reality is that we do not have a large pool of players to draw from to serve in these roles and it would be foolish to arbitrarily exclude those who have proven to be effective.
GreekIdiot wrote:5. I assume our biggest caveat here is relying less on Wouter for the game's day-to-day, this is where I come in?
6. Assuming you want me to stick around, we ask that W does the admin role for me and sets up something higher for him?
The roles above Operator/Moderator are less important to me, honestly. I do not think they should be doing much. In an ideal world, Wouter would be attentive enough to remove those who abuse their position promptly. Recent evidence suggests he is not. If he is willing to appoint you to do this for him, I support that.
GreekIdiot wrote:7. Should I remain, I'd like to have the liberty to perform requests when I can, advise on areas and generally be involved as a guide in the game, would that be OK?
8. Should I remain and since our game rules are riddled with moderational obscurities, would it be OK if warnings and bans still went through me?
Provide advise and guide? Yes, I think anybody should be allowed to do that. Perform requests and oversee sanctions? No, in my honest opinion. I think that both of these should be handled by Moderators. As I have said already, I think you have shown you are more than capable of fulfilling that role. If you are not interested in it though, I do not think you should be doing these duties because it undermines the purpose of having distinct roles. In the case of bans specifically, I do think it would be reasonable to suggest bans can be appealed to you where a player feels they have been treated unfairly by Moderators.
GreekIdiot wrote:9. If we set out to tackle the game rules - not by me this time - would it be OK if at least I instituted a proper/clear warning-banning method here?
In case I was not clear, I do think it is the right approach for you to be the person to tackle the Game Rules. The point I was making is that the proposal you have presented does not empower you to do this.