Mr.God wrote:In my post of ending the consultation i clearly stated that we would take all suggestions into consideration when deciding on what to implement/amend or remove from the release. We are not only discussing things with Farsun. We are however discussing Farsun his proposals with him in detail which is fair in my opinion. The reason that we extended the consultation in the first place was because we felt like it was only fair for people that while we werent fully active on the thread in the last weeks people could still voice their critique and opinions to be taken and examined by us when making a decision on what to implement and what not
First let me reiterate that I don't have any issue with whatever Farsun might propose. Based on his outline here and having worked with him on numerous occasions, I trust that his proposals and insight will be useful and productive. My objection is based on the process that seems to have been followed: 1) Moderation deliberated between them and developed these proposed changes 2) Moderation presented these changes for public consultation 3) Moderation ended the consultation and stated that they would be working privately with a single player to finalise rule changes. The process doesn't seem logical, fair or beneficial to achieving outcomes that actually push the game forward.
Mr.God wrote:We will not split several issues in several consultations. I understand your point of view however we have had a very lengthy consultation already and to split them up and discuss them seperately is, in our mind, not effective and so will not be done.
The problem with such a broad consultation is that nothing can properly be discussed, there's no opportunity for anybody to focus and articulate ideas because there are multiple issues being discussed all at the same time. It is not clear to me what the position of these proposals are: whether they are still being considered, whether they have been implemented or whether entirely new changes are now being thought up. With that said, I think it's rather silly to characterise the current process as having been "effective".
Mr.God wrote:To move onto the GRC we clearly have a very different opinion on the matter. Yes, the GRC in the past months has clearly been very inactive and innefective. This doesnt take away the fact that i am 100% certain that those problems can and will be fixed with some minor changes.
The reason for the appointment of Fin is pretty clear. The GRC was paralyzed, and in the effort to revitalize the organization we appointed Fin as he is experienced and in our opinion has what it takes to get the GRC back on track together with Farsun and the other remaining GRC members.
To remove the GRC and create a completely new system or organization will:
1. bring even more bureaucracy to Particracy which we DONT need and 2. doesnt give us a guarentee that system actually works.
I have multiple, fundamental differences of opinion with this section so apologies if this section is lengthy. The first thing to note is that this "ineffectiveness" is not limited to the GRC over the past few months, it has been a feature of every body of its kind over the history of the game. The RP Team in its various incarnations was never an effective organisation and to suggest that some minor tweaks can fix this problem demonstrates a lack of understanding of what the problem is. My understanding is that for any role in this community to function properly it has to have two features: a) clear and well-understood roles and duties and b) an outside force which will hold the individual to account. In the case of most RP Team and GRC members across the history of the game, this has simply not been the case. The facts of the matter are that nobody knows what the GRC are supposed to do and nobody holds them to account if they don't do it.
If I might develop this point, the two roles I think are beneficial to have are the Third World and World Congress positions. In both cases, there is a fundamental function being performed by the office holders and it is easy to hold them to account if they are unfulfilled (i.e. if I request control of a TW Nation and receive no response after three weeks then perhaps we should be asking questions of Reddy). The same is true of Moderation in this respect, if nobody is having their requests fulfilled in the request threads then people begin to wonder about Moderation's ability to do their jobs.
Linking back to my original point, it doesn't matter then that Fin is someone with experience (I agree with you that he is) because it is the body itself, rather than its membership that is the fundamental problem. My point about whether he had "an active account in game and on the forums" wasn't a case of suggesting he isn't deserving of the role. I would like to repeat my request in this regard, though, did Fin have an active in-game account when he was appointed or did Moderation ignore the Game Rules in appointing him?
In response to your suggestion that "a new system would bring bureaucracy" it should be noted that I have repeatedly advocated for the abolition of the entire project. If removal of bureaucracy is the priority then just scrap the Committee altogether. I would argue though that recent "anti-bureaucracy" warriors have left us with a Game Rules document that is far inferior in terms of its completeness to the so-called bureaucratic nightmare document that we had in the past, which was in fact extremely comprehensive and effective.
Mr.God wrote:Personally i think it is about appointing the right people to the right positions and, as moderation, put in the energy and effort into assisting the GRC in succeeding rather then the entire system being flawed.
If it is the personnel and not the system then are you suggesting that the members of the GRC over the past few months were the problem? If this is the case then why did Moderation refuse to remove inactive members like CCP despite repeated requests from me and other players? Even after CCP was removed and when I had been appointed GRC Chair, I urged Moderation to remove inactive members but again this didn't happen and I had a team which was (aside from a couple of members) totally uninterested in doing anything in the game. Even if we accept this idea that it's the GRC membership that is the problem, every current GRC member has previously been a part of the body. What makes you think that they are suddenly going to be able spark life into it when the evidence shows that simply isn't going to happen? I suppose it comes back to the point I made earlier, why is Moderation so averse to admitting to the failure of the GRC?