Galactic Council - Give it another chance

[xDaku]

You know how many suggestion threads have been passed on to admin? Know how many have gone through?

Exactly.

You get more done when you have representatives talk within their alliance then discuss it in the Council, rather than have a 100+ people post in one thread and have the original idea lost - which is what usually happens.

[MEZZANINE]

Sadly admin does not read the suggestion area, thats why not many bother posting there any more, and even the best suggestion threads are full of squabbling over details.

The idea of the Galactic Council is that we work out the details among ourselves first, then present complete update idea's to Admin in the name of all the alliances involved.

Would be hard for admin to refuse something that has cross-server support via the backing of all major alliances, and impossible for him to say it wasnt wanted/needed with so many players behind it.

And thats why I said some people go to admin meets and link him to the threads.

So basically, you dont want him to see everyone who disagrees with the idea and those people merits.

We can already work out the details ourselves with the threads already there. There is no need to make such a program to do so. Our community is too small for this GC to work. Like I said, it could have worked years ago when it much bigger. But not now, its too small to have only a few people taking about it and having them relay it to there alliance. When we all can just read it and post what we think about it.

And how many people actually make it admin meets, and of those how many does admin listen too, and on the occasions admin does listen how many accusations follow of favouritism, bias and doing something just one person or alliance wants ???


Far better to have cross alliance support for an idea and take to admin with the backing of all.

The Galactic Council can work, but it needs as many as possibly to participate, so when they agree, what they agree on carries more weight.

[Sadow]

And how many people actually make it admin meets

No more than 15 people usually go, and its usually people who need to be unbanned.

[Field Marshall]

I've been to the majority of the first admin meets in the last 3 months...nobody ever comes anymore, they forget.

We did solve the 1Q covert bug last Friday

Admin fixes them when told about them, but he doesn't read the suggestions

As far as this is concerned, I would put myself forward..but obviously I've not discussed it with them, so I'd have to get confirmation on TL's stance on the GC.

Oh yeah, call it something else...cos GC can mean Galactic Collessium or General Chaos

[Rudy Peña]

The threads do have cross alliance support of the ideas.

It doesnt matter how many people make the meets, thats why several people should go and present the linked threads to admin and say this is how many people like this idea and such things like that. Which is what the GC would have been doing.

You are just adding a name to it and limiting to a few people. Like I said, just cause this will be made, doesnt mean people will have a sudden moment of a idea. Thus the great idea for the GC is useless. You guys make it sound big and grand, which it is not. Just a group of people smaller than the other people who have already made ideas and such.

[Sadow]

And how many people actually make it admin meets

No more than 15 people usually go, and its usually people who need to be unbanned.

last meet I was at had 2

I would go, but i end up being busy. I try to go whenever possible. Admin, Paul and a few others speak but thats it.

[MEZZANINE]

The threads do have cross alliance support of the ideas.

It doesnt matter how many people make the meets, thats why several people should go and present the linked threads to admin and say this is how many people like this idea and such things like that. Which is what the GC would have been doing.

You are just adding a name to it and limiting to a few people. Like I said, just cause this will be made, doesnt mean people will have a sudden moment of a idea. Thus the great idea for the GC is useless. You guys make it sound big and grand, which it is not. Just a group of people smaller than the other people who have already made ideas and such.

Limiting to a fewer people yes, but people who speak to their alliance and speak for their alliance

For example, what do your think is easier, speaking to 80 people, or having 8 speak to 10 each, then having the 8 ( each representing 10 ) speak together, much easier to get a consensus that way.


As for the idea's you are right, people wont suddenly come up with new idea's just because of this, but they can review and update old idea's, work out the details of them one by one, then present the best ones to admin with a united voice.

[Rudy Peña]

The threads do have cross alliance support of the ideas.

It doesnt matter how many people make the meets, thats why several people should go and present the linked threads to admin and say this is how many people like this idea and such things like that. Which is what the GC would have been doing.

You are just adding a name to it and limiting to a few people. Like I said, just cause this will be made, doesnt mean people will have a sudden moment of a idea. Thus the great idea for the GC is useless. You guys make it sound big and grand, which it is not. Just a group of people smaller than the other people who have already made ideas and such.

Limiting to a fewer people yes, but people who speak to their alliance and speak for their alliance

For example, what do your think is easier, speaking to 80 people, or having 8 speak to 10 each, then having the 8 ( each representing 10 ) speak together, much easier to get a consensus that way.


As for the idea's you are right, people wont suddenly come up with new idea's just because of this, but they can review and update old idea's, work out the details of them one by one, then present the best ones to admin with a united voice.

You dont need a group to review and update the old threads. One person or 2 people can do that and repost detailing the idea and the pros and cons.

If I wanted I could do it, it doesnt take a whole group of people. Just 1 or 2 people to look at all the threads, group them together and read them. Make a new thread post all the links to said idea and write about the idea and what the pros and cons would/can be.

There is nothing more to it. The more people the better which means more ways to talk about it instead of a few people playing messager for others. More people means that everyone can voice there thoughts on it and not take the chance to have there thoughts on it be mislead by the representative.


For example, daku tells mezz his thoughts on it. When mezz posts daku's thoughts, but he does it in a different way than intended by accident. JT reads mezz's post of daku's thoughts and see's it as something else than what daku originally wanted. Thus daku's thoughts are not well represented by accident.

Could mezz have made it represented better? Yes, but it is better to have daku post his thoughts.

What if JT, wants to ask daku why he wanted he said what he said or something. Why should JT go to mezz and say hey mezz ask daku this and this and that. When JT can reply directly to daku.

Another example, JT replies to daku and KSM replies and posts this thoughts to both JT and daku. But by doing this GC you want.... Now you have JT talking to mezz to relay his reply to daku and KSM talks to math to have math talk to both JT and mezz, then mezz talks to daku. Then it goes back up.

Now you have a fraked up message system where things can be misrepresented by accident.

[MEZZANINE]

The threads do have cross alliance support of the ideas.

It doesnt matter how many people make the meets, thats why several people should go and present the linked threads to admin and say this is how many people like this idea and such things like that. Which is what the GC would have been doing.

You are just adding a name to it and limiting to a few people. Like I said, just cause this will be made, doesnt mean people will have a sudden moment of a idea. Thus the great idea for the GC is useless. You guys make it sound big and grand, which it is not. Just a group of people smaller than the other people who have already made ideas and such.

Limiting to a fewer people yes, but people who speak to their alliance and speak for their alliance

For example, what do your think is easier, speaking to 80 people, or having 8 speak to 10 each, then having the 8 ( each representing 10 ) speak together, much easier to get a consensus that way.


As for the idea's you are right, people wont suddenly come up with new idea's just because of this, but they can review and update old idea's, work out the details of them one by one, then present the best ones to admin with a united voice.

You dont need a group to review and update the old threads. One person or 2 people can do that and repost detailing the idea and the pros and cons.

If I wanted I could do it, it doesnt take a whole group of people. Just 1 or 2 people to look at all the threads, group them together and read them. Make a new thread post all the links to said idea and write about the idea and what the pros and cons would/can be.

There is nothing more to it. The more people the better which means more ways to talk about it instead of a few people playing messager for others. More people means that everyone can voice there thoughts on it and not take the chance to have there thoughts on it be mislead by the representative.


For example, daku tells mezz his thoughts on it. When mezz posts daku's thoughts, but he does it in a different way than intended by accident. JT reads mezz's post of daku's thoughts and see's it as something else than what daku originally wanted. Thus daku's thoughts are not well represented by accident.

Could mezz have made it represented better? Yes, but it is better to have daku post his thoughts.

What if JT, wants to ask daku why he wanted he said what he said or something. Why should JT go to mezz and say hey mezz ask daku this and this and that. When JT can reply directly to daku.

Another example, JT replies to daku and KSM replies and posts this thoughts to both JT and daku. But by doing this GC you want.... Now you have JT talking to mezz to relay his reply to daku and KSM talks to math to have math talk to both JT and mezz, then mezz talks to daku. Then it goes back up.

Now you have a fraked up message system where things can be misrepresented by accident.

You're looking at two extremes mate, yes 1 or 2 people could review old suggestions but they would have a very limited view point which many may disagree with, and yes you can have 100+ people all adding their views ( the current system ) but that way you will never get them all to agree, and some people are not as good at expressing their views as others.

The middle ground, the best of both is when you have each alliance decide on it's position and and select the representative who is best able to articulate and put forward the argument for what they want to achieve from the update idea in question.

There is a good reason that representative democracy evolved, it's far from perfect, but it happens to better than all the alternatives.

[Juliette]

Any logical argument, carried to its extreme, is absurd.

[Rudy Peña]

The threads do have cross alliance support of the ideas.

It doesnt matter how many people make the meets, thats why several people should go and present the linked threads to admin and say this is how many people like this idea and such things like that. Which is what the GC would have been doing.

You are just adding a name to it and limiting to a few people. Like I said, just cause this will be made, doesnt mean people will have a sudden moment of a idea. Thus the great idea for the GC is useless. You guys make it sound big and grand, which it is not. Just a group of people smaller than the other people who have already made ideas and such.

Limiting to a fewer people yes, but people who speak to their alliance and speak for their alliance

For example, what do your think is easier, speaking to 80 people, or having 8 speak to 10 each, then having the 8 ( each representing 10 ) speak together, much easier to get a consensus that way.


As for the idea's you are right, people wont suddenly come up with new idea's just because of this, but they can review and update old idea's, work out the details of them one by one, then present the best ones to admin with a united voice.

You dont need a group to review and update the old threads. One person or 2 people can do that and repost detailing the idea and the pros and cons.

If I wanted I could do it, it doesnt take a whole group of people. Just 1 or 2 people to look at all the threads, group them together and read them. Make a new thread post all the links to said idea and write about the idea and what the pros and cons would/can be.

There is nothing more to it. The more people the better which means more ways to talk about it instead of a few people playing messager for others. More people means that everyone can voice there thoughts on it and not take the chance to have there thoughts on it be mislead by the representative.


For example, daku tells mezz his thoughts on it. When mezz posts daku's thoughts, but he does it in a different way than intended by accident. JT reads mezz's post of daku's thoughts and see's it as something else than what daku originally wanted. Thus daku's thoughts are not well represented by accident.

Could mezz have made it represented better? Yes, but it is better to have daku post his thoughts.

What if JT, wants to ask daku why he wanted he said what he said or something. Why should JT go to mezz and say hey mezz ask daku this and this and that. When JT can reply directly to daku.

Another example, JT replies to daku and KSM replies and posts this thoughts to both JT and daku. But by doing this GC you want.... Now you have JT talking to mezz to relay his reply to daku and KSM talks to math to have math talk to both JT and mezz, then mezz talks to daku. Then it goes back up.

Now you have a fraked up message system where things can be misrepresented by accident.

You're looking at two extremes mate, yes 1 or 2 people could review old suggestions but they would have a very limited view point which many may disagree with, and yes you can have 100+ people all adding their views ( the current system ) but that way you will never get them all to agree, and some people are not as good at expressing their views as others.

The middle ground, the best of both is when you have each alliance decide on it's position and and select the representative who is best able to articulate and put forward the argument for what they want to achieve from the update idea in question.

There is a good reason that representative democracy evolved, it's far from perfect, but it happens to better than all the alternatives.

Even with this GC thing you want, it still wont make everyone agree. The best people to articulate there view is that same person, where other views get put into also.

Yes it has evolved, just look at the US and the UK and others in Europe, the people are not being represented the way they want to no matter who they elect.

This gaming community is already to small for this to work.

And no its not a extreme.

[MEZZANINE]

The threads do have cross alliance support of the ideas.

It doesnt matter how many people make the meets, thats why several people should go and present the linked threads to admin and say this is how many people like this idea and such things like that. Which is what the GC would have been doing.

You are just adding a name to it and limiting to a few people. Like I said, just cause this will be made, doesnt mean people will have a sudden moment of a idea. Thus the great idea for the GC is useless. You guys make it sound big and grand, which it is not. Just a group of people smaller than the other people who have already made ideas and such.

Limiting to a fewer people yes, but people who speak to their alliance and speak for their alliance

For example, what do your think is easier, speaking to 80 people, or having 8 speak to 10 each, then having the 8 ( each representing 10 ) speak together, much easier to get a consensus that way.


As for the idea's you are right, people wont suddenly come up with new idea's just because of this, but they can review and update old idea's, work out the details of them one by one, then present the best ones to admin with a united voice.

You dont need a group to review and update the old threads. One person or 2 people can do that and repost detailing the idea and the pros and cons.

If I wanted I could do it, it doesnt take a whole group of people. Just 1 or 2 people to look at all the threads, group them together and read them. Make a new thread post all the links to said idea and write about the idea and what the pros and cons would/can be.

There is nothing more to it. The more people the better which means more ways to talk about it instead of a few people playing messager for others. More people means that everyone can voice there thoughts on it and not take the chance to have there thoughts on it be mislead by the representative.


For example, daku tells mezz his thoughts on it. When mezz posts daku's thoughts, but he does it in a different way than intended by accident. JT reads mezz's post of daku's thoughts and see's it as something else than what daku originally wanted. Thus daku's thoughts are not well represented by accident.

Could mezz have made it represented better? Yes, but it is better to have daku post his thoughts.

What if JT, wants to ask daku why he wanted he said what he said or something. Why should JT go to mezz and say hey mezz ask daku this and this and that. When JT can reply directly to daku.

Another example, JT replies to daku and KSM replies and posts this thoughts to both JT and daku. But by doing this GC you want.... Now you have JT talking to mezz to relay his reply to daku and KSM talks to math to have math talk to both JT and mezz, then mezz talks to daku. Then it goes back up.

Now you have a fraked up message system where things can be misrepresented by accident.

You're looking at two extremes mate, yes 1 or 2 people could review old suggestions but they would have a very limited view point which many may disagree with, and yes you can have 100+ people all adding their views ( the current system ) but that way you will never get them all to agree, and some people are not as good at expressing their views as others.

The middle ground, the best of both is when you have each alliance decide on it's position and and select the representative who is best able to articulate and put forward the argument for what they want to achieve from the update idea in question.

There is a good reason that representative democracy evolved, it's far from perfect, but it happens to better than all the alternatives.

Even with this GC thing you want, it still wont make everyone agree. The best people to articulate there view is that same person, where other views get put into also.

Yes it has evolved, just look at the US and the UK and others in Europe, the people are not being represented the way they want to no matter who they elect.

This gaming community is already to small for this to work.

And no its not a extreme.

K, well guess I wont put you down for a YES just yet then, but Im no quitter so I'll list you as a MAYBE lol




Moving one, every alliance is welcome and encouraged to participate, speak to your fellow members and put forward a representative, after you all you nothing to lose and the potential to gain a lot.

[Sarevok]

I don't exactly see the suggestions forum bustling with activity either.

Maybe cause like 1% of suggestions are even considered by admin. Why develop an idea, if it's not going to get looked at.

If this is going to actually get looked at and discussed on a regular basis, it would be far more useful.

[ƒëmmë]

omg, finds self agreeing with Rudy..

and who represents the players at aren't part of a big allaince? and is it a rep from each alliance or each empire?

why not table it like a professional minutes, with attendees listed and matters discussed posted after each meeting. So all the community can see.

the reason the admin meetings aren't attended, could be addressed with a countdown to next meeting clock on forum and a post of things discussed at previous meetings like Tekki used to post.

[Sarevok]

the reason the admin meetings aren't attended, could be addressed with a countdown to next meeting clock on forum and a post of things discussed at previous meetings like Tekki used to post.

+1 Like this

The idea behind this is condensed discussion by representatives of alliances (composed of groups of community members) and then the refined ideas with the backing of a diverse amount of the community will be presented to Jason and I would imagine moved/posted in the public suggestions section for further and more open discussion as well. At least, thats how I see it.

I don't understand. I doubt it that more then 2 people would discuss a suggestion from an alliance. And there was like 2 1/2 pages of people saying "I'm interested" which is similar number to what is in the discussion part.
By all means try it. But I don't see the massive difference myself, apart from it being "alliance leaders like it" instead of "the community like it"