Proposal: Updating the game rules & the moderation team

[GreekIdiot]

Thanks for the responses Greek. Given there were quite a few places you agreed with my points, do you / how do you intend to make proposed updates that I can review and offer further feedback on?

I can make a copy on the same post under the original proposed. Check it out, here. Would that work?

[jamescfm]

I agree with many of the points raised by Zanz in his response, so I will not repeat those here. I have feedback to share on the specific proposals raised and I will do that in due course. In the short term though, I want to make a few general points about this proposal that relate to the document as a whole and the broader process, before considering the specific details.

The first point is similar to the one I raised earlier in this thread. The proposal is simply too large for it to be meaningfully considered by most members of the community. Even as somebody who is motivated to take an interest in how the Game Rules are written, I have found it difficult to find the time to scrutinise this proposal. In your initial response, you sounded as though you broadly recognised the point that I was making but it does appear that we are continuing with a change in this way. If that is the case, I will not belabour the point any further but I would like to say again that I think updates to the Game Rules should be proposed in sections, to allow for careful scrutiny.

In line with the suggestion above, the natural starting point for an update to the Game Rules would be to provide clarity on the leadership structure of the game, especially who is empowered to oversee changes to the Game Rules. For most of the time that I have been playing the game, the structure has been clear and simple. Wouter appoints Moderators who moderate the game. In this context, to moderate the game means to both write and enforce the Game Rules, to deal with all administrative tasks (routine or otherwise), and to manage role-play initiatives (such as the dynamic rankings and the World Congress).

Moderators have been empowered to hire and fire other roles. Broadly these could be categorised as "role-play" and "admin" roles. The former includes all versions of the Role-Play Team, Committee, Co-ordinators, et cetera and the latter has primarily meant wiki administrators and Discord moderators. The specific responsibilities of these positions have varied and they have almost always been subject to the preferences of the Moderation team at any point.

Both the current structure and the structure that you are proposing are a departure from this. Though I am not committed to the previous structure, I believe that both of these alternatives are confusing. In the past two months, I have been directly involved in the managing of the game in several ways and I have to be frank that I do not fully understand it. In some areas, there are clear delimitations of authority but there are many where decisions are made in an ad hoc manner.

A central concern for me is unclear terms and poorly-defined roles. The new proposal includes both members of the Role-Play Committee (they are referred to as "Advisors", I am choosing to use the existing term) and the game's creator Wouter Lievens under the heading of the "Moderation Team". It is a challenge to get a response from Wouter within the same calendar month. If we are expecting him to do any moderating, we are living in cloud-cuckoo-land.

From my own experience with the Role-Play Committee, I believe we have created the most effective and productive version of this body for some time. I do not think we should and I do not think we could moderate the game effectively. If I am being honest, I think the current structure of the team is not well-suited to the responsibilities we have been given. If the expectation moving forward is that we will continue to be responsible for dealing with many requests, the size of the Committee should be reduced.

The role of "Operator" is perhaps the most unclear to me. From my understanding, this is effectively the Moderator role but given another name and stripped of the power to ban players (which is now reserved to you and Wouter). For what it is worth, I disagree with renaming things in this way. If a person's responsibility is to moderate, it is good practice to call them a Moderator. The same principle applies to the Role-Play Committee, given it is clear from their role description that they would not simply be advisors. Likewise, it appears the role is actually doing more administrative work than the "Admins".

Speaking generally, my opinion is these changes would exacerbate two existing problems with the current structure: the lack of a clear division of responsibilities, and a related lack of coordination among the game's leadership. Not only does this create extra work because individuals have to repeatedly request those in other roles to action tasks but it means delays to requests for players and leads to a general lack of authoritative decision-making.

I am loath to offer criticism without proposing an alternative. For that reason, here are my suggestions about the immediate next steps. The first thing that I would like to see happen is confirmation that the leadership structure of the game will be discussed and agreed before any further changes to the Game Rules are implemented. In terms of what that leadership structure should be, it needs to be clearer.

Keep the current rules and terms (i.e. Moderator and Role-Play Committee) and create a new "Wouter level" role for yourself. Currently Wouter's role on the forum is "Administrator" but this is probably a misleading term. I would suggest something like "Game Manager" or "Game Controller". Empower the Moderators to do all the administrative work and let the Role-Play Committee focus on role-play issues. Exceptions should perhaps be made for certain requests (e.g. forum-based country control) but there should be more clarity on what the Committee is actually doing in these cases.

[GreekIdiot]

I'm not sure I've understood 100%, so if i may pose some thoughts in the form of questions, here.

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?
2. Keep Moderators as is? no operators
3. Definitely keep the consensus thingy for both Mods and RPC, so each group can help each other in case of disagreements?
4. What about alternating mods and rpc?
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?
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?
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?

[jamescfm]

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[GreekIdiot]

That was super clear, thanks james. Lemme try something here.

[GreekIdiot]

Alright, based on the feedback so far I've added a v2.1 to section 1, here, which I renamed as "Introduction".
And added a v2.1 to section 2, here, which I renamed to "Player Conduct".

Added a subnote to section 2 in case we decided to move forward with these 2 parts and then proceed to the rest of the rules.

My apologies to Zanz/James if I missed something already discussed.