Democracy in EL

[woo]

Perhaps allow each guild 1 vote how they decide is up to them, no guild your in the hands of god anyways.

[DarElik]

I don't understand why you put up polls. You get irritated every time.

 

And too many people don't read the topic nor think about what it could mean, they vote emotionally and it's a waste. It doesn't help them or the game.

 

Since that is the case, it doesn't matter if it's 50% or 70%.

 

We've already established that you are final say in game. Why don't you collect a group of people with various experiences in game and form your OWN council. Not a republic or a democracy. But an advisory panel that can present counter points and hash out ideas.

 

Anything has to be better than wanting to ban people during each vote

 

Not sure about an advisory panel, but the rest of your post is dead on. I think our "advisory panel" is right here in this thread, discussing it all together right now.

 

From reading through this (and a couple of the other) threads lately, it dawned on me that simply starting a thread for discussion like this would be the way to go. There's a lot of great input/debate lately in the threads like this. It seems you can get a really good idea of what people want/think and pretty much know the results you're likely to get once a poll goes up anyway.

 

Come up with a new idea, start a thread for discussion and within a few days (and 80 posts later), you have a pretty good picture of the general opinions, alternative and/or additional ideas or solutions.

 

(Plus, I enjoy reading through discussions like this rather than simply clicking a poll choice and viewing the score, it allows me to absorb many different points of view that I wouldn't get just looking at poll numbers for the various choices)

[Khalai]

I agree with the idea, that Ent should decide whether he will do it or not and polls would be done only to determine the magnitude of changes. So cap poll would have been: do you want 60 cap or 48 cap? Those who are against the idea has the bad luck of being on the other side than teh G0d

[korrode]

My understanding of how governments around the world operate is limited, but i thought i most cases there is a senate that votes and 2/3 agreeance from them is needed to make changes.

 

The entire country doesn't vote on everything. A group of experienced politicians vote.

 

So unless you're going to assemble a senate of experienced players, then 51% is enough imo.

(EDIT: only skimmed the thread before posting, i see now the failed players council was mentioned...

perhaps people with a skill in top 100 are worth 3 votes, skill in top 200 worth 2 votes, and everyone else 1 vote)

 

What Asgnny said about 51% being enough for an idea that you like Ent, and 65 or 70% required to overturn it sounds like a good system too.

Edited December 14, 2007 by Korrode

[peino]

I'd say a majority is 51% (simple majority) or greater, but to be honest, I don't care about what constitutes a majority in this context because I think having too much democracy in EL would be a bad thing.

 

My opinion is purely personal, based on my own life/work experience as an artist who works with creative product (artworks) both solo and in teams, as both leader and follower. It goes like this:

 

EL is not a society. It is a product -- Entropy's product. It is his creative vision, and he is the one making the plans of where it's going to go and what it's going to be. I see Entropy as the author of this creative work, and myself as his participatory audience. It is not my place to direct his creative work. If the audience is going to be writing the script, as it were, the game will quickly become something very, very, very different from what it is. Frankly, if I were Entropy, I would not give up control of my game that much -- throw my idea to the wolves, in a sense. I think projects like EL need the control of a single creative direction to hold them together, and Entropy does that very well. He does not need a majority vote to tell him what to do with his game -- and neither do we.

 

When it comes to open player polls, I would rather they be treated like customer opinion surveys, rather than actual votes that can control the outcome of a decision. So, if an idea has been floated, and Entropy wants to see what the customers (the players) think of it as part of his decision-making process, that is what the player polls should be for. But the results would only be part of the info that goes into the decision, so even a vast majority in favor of something would not guarantee that it will happen. But it does mean that the game will be responsive to the players, because it will help Entropy know what his audience is thinking.

 

If Entropy would like a more democratic creative team set-up, and if he were asking my opinion about it, I would seriously advise AGAINST opening up input to the whole player community via votes that matter. Too much input will dilute the concept of the game, maybe to the point of ruining creative direction. I have seen it happen on projects I've worked on.

 

To take more liberties with Entropy's question, I'll put myself in Ent's place. I like to control my own creative ideas, so if this were my game, I would not allow other people to vote on what I do with it. But, since my goal is to please an audience, I would look for others' opinons in 2 ways: Player opinion polls, and a council of my development team (programmers, renderers, writers, whatever) plus a few experienced players chosen by the team to be invited into the council because of their demonstrated sanity. That council would be an advisory board only. The final decisions would still be mine. (Or I would do periodic focus group surveys of hand-picked players.)

 

In my opinion, to let players vote on changes in EL and actually have those votes matter, would turn Entropy into a hundred people's servant, rather than the creative director of a project. There's no way I would do it, if I were him, but maybe that's just me.

[LochnessLobster]

I vote for NO DEMOCRACY in EL.

 

 

now THAT is ironic

[DogBreath]

My last reply on this (I promise.)

 

After a lenghty discussion with someone who has 'deep ties' to the community (as I cleary couldn't have even if I think I know a bit about gaming.) It's clear to me that it might be a good idea to point out in the poll whether or not this is a 'temporary' fix to a long term problem that's forcing people from the game, or a long term fix.

 

The previous poll, that seems to have sparked this discussion, for example: it seems that this is exaclty what was trying to be addressed, had I known that, I most certainly would have changed my vote to yes. I clearly didn't know that this issue was forcing people from the game and that a fix now would provide releif 'now' for a long term problem. Not that a future tuning/fix is a bad idea, but that 'now' was more of the issue.

 

Maybe future polls should include that type of insight, as I clearly thought long term on this and obviously was a 'noob' (yeah, go ahead and get your laughs) about how this was affecting the current situation. Long term solutions are great, if you don't lose everyone before they're implemented

 

So, I humble myself before you as a 'community noob' even if I do have a lot of gaming experience and might be able to propose long term solutions based on those experiences.

 

(Slightly off topic, but to the point I hope, a new poll pointing out the 'current need' including the fact that long term solutions are being sought might just get the desired results, imho)

[Darwin2M]

Glad someone finally got that!

 

I vote for NO DEMOCRACY in EL.

 

 

now THAT is ironic

[Sidran]

Please note that I am not native English speaker

 

Lets think from Entropy`s shoes, some previous posters said.. Thats a good idea, that i`ll follow in this post..

 

First thing I would do on Entropy`s place is to form my developer council.. and continue CORE of every discussion right there(maybe a hidden forum thread)

( Those inpatient enough to hear all I have to say are free to skip my post )

 

Such council members must be very carefully hand picked.. To shelter such ADVISORY body, complete secrecy and discretion must be granted.. Those individuals must be: rational, patient, able to understand complex issues, able to keep quiet about their involvement even to best friends inside.. Their role would not be to work behind peoples backs, but to help Entropy articulate and formulate polls, proposals, ideas or share with him their humble opinion on different metters.. So, they would be highly secret, and completely advisory not executive body.. After having a chat with them(as 20 handpicked brains are smarter then one) Entropy would be able to communicate his ideas to general public with a lot more precision and articulation, for his and general public`s good..

 

I am giving such vision of "council" because I am part of something similar elsewhere.. Chewing issues with selected few FIRST, helped makers of another game greatly.. They picked their advisers wisely, and I know how constructive and pleasant those hidden parts of forum became.. All issues can be discussed there in a simple and optimized way, before Entropy decides what is best to do.. Considering secrecy of such body, its members would be free to wisely discuss current issues with general public(their friends..) and to evaluate strengths and weaknesses of every possible step..

 

So, after forming of such body, I would consult them first about what I want to do and what is the best path to take..

[HeLLRaiZeR]

I personally think that having democracy in an online game is bound with failure.

 

Many players will vote from the point of their own interest. For example the NMT voting. If you have bought a cape for 300K off course you don't want to have it altered/nerfed. The best way of running a MMORPG as I see would be having the administrator team deciding all the "major" changes, allthough occasional polls determining the outcome of a smaller change such as "Do you want the new penguin creature look like X or Y" being positive. Having a suggestion forum is also nice, like we already have, where players can post what they would like implemented and the devs can perhaps catch some inspiration.

 

The recent happenings is really scaring me. I will really miss the pkers on the main server and I think it's stupid to have the community split in two factions, the pkers and the non-pkers. I was reading one post where Entropy states that he won't make changes to the main server and instead focus on the pk server and add a new "default server". This is making me wonder whether it's worth keeping on playing on this server or not. In my point of view we should try tweak the system of the main server rather than make a new system from scratch.

 

[Requiem]

personally I like the way things are run now, the benevolent dictator thing seems to work well. and the community having too much control kinda scares me

[Fourier]

I would like to point out something here. At least in US politics, roughly 40% of the population will always vote Republican and roughly 40% of the population will always vote Democrat. This means that candidates are vying for the 20% independent vote. When a candidate gets 60% of the popular vote, this is considered a resounding victory. Anything larger is considered a landslide.

 

I think we have a similar situation in EL. We have a large group who votes "no change" and a large group who votes "change" and middle group who actually considers the options and makes a decision. To me this middle group is around 20% of the active forum folks. Therefore, I suggest that a 60% majority is a resounding victory and should certify any proposed EL change.

 

4

[Infamous]

why is 50% even in there? 50% is an equal distribution of votes, no majority in it.

 

i vote for 60%, since 60% is more then half of the voters it's a majority

Edited December 14, 2007 by Hardcore

[Mango]

If you, Radu, suggest something that you think benefits the game, and 51% voted in favor it, imo we got a majority worth listening to.

[dejan]

It is hard to believe there will ever be democracy in this game. Even when majority won some votes there were ways of twisting everything upside down and at the end we ended with what "Gods" decided. So I asked "why bothering"? To give people false feeling that they can influence the will of the "God"?

Even blind person can see that now money drives the development of the game. Fortunately for some, unfortunately for someone like me, quite often (actually last 2 years) the development, for reasons mentioned above, went into directions that i have never hoped EL would go to. The game is now boring and not funny as it was when I started to play it. The only thing that has been improved are Roja's models. Developers are focusing on totally irrelevant things while they are forgetting things that make MMORPG game a RPG game... Eternal Lands should be renamed into "Chaos Lands".

Edited December 14, 2007 by Dejan

[Ateh]

apart from any points of view, this thread shows that Entropy does value the opinions of his players and is willing to let us the players shape the way the game goes, to be honest thats f. amazing

 

i still say majority is simply defined, 51 % is bigger than 50 % , it really should be that easy

 

and some people have said we shouldnt be allowed to vote on everything, your right we shouldnt, some things should just be done , because we dont know and cant be trusted to make the best decision for the over all game, which is why I dont like the idea of this council people are on about.

 

If the council only consist of the top players, what if a change could affect the top brass adversely, they arent going to go for it are they ?

 

Yes theres such thing as impartiality, but unfortunately it doesnt allways work because being impartial means you have no vested interest in the outcome, and every single player has a vested interest in the way the game works, top or lowest

 

*edit * added impartiality bit

Edited December 14, 2007 by Ateh

[dejan]

Well, i have seen this before - council members are handpicked by Gods themselves - the more "yes master" they say, the better chances they will make it into the council...

If you wish democracy, make players vote for council members before anything...

[Sidran]

If the council only consist of the top players, what if a change could affect the top brass adversely, they arent going to go for it are they ?

 

Yes theres such thing as impartiality, but unfortunately it doesnt allways work because being impartial means you have no vested interest in the outcome, and every single player has a vested interest in the way the game works, top or lowest

 

My idea of council sees ingame performance of its members completely irrelevant.. Its based upon Radu`s discretion(true power) to choose whomever he finds suitable.. Also it means(contrary to instinctive understanding) lack of any(read ANY) power to them.. Their role is just to help Radu refine his intentions..

Thats the point being secretive(also contrary to instinct) so they be able to gather info and think of possibilities without being made pop stars(for spitting or glorifying as in pop culture).. As for objectiveness, I know that I am able to get above my own interests and see the big picture.. But also shut up if anyone gives me proper argument to do so.. And I firmly believe there are similar people out there..

 

And to reply to Dejan`s post.. I hope Radu is able to wisely pick, as it is in his best interest.. If he is not able to do that, then I guess we are all pretty doomed here as his word will always be final, no metter how much democracy we bring in..

[larrystorch]

I'm all for no democracy. I've adapted and enjoyed the changes he's made in the past two years. I don't remember a poll on the cooldown before that was introduced and that was a big change.

 

Think about. Most game development companies have inhouse beta testers to bounce ideas off of and to test them before the public ever knows about them. Sure we're the beta testers in this case, but a lot of us look at it from our own perspective and not look at the whole picture. It's human nature.

 

Let Entropy have advisers from all the skills that he feels he can trust to thoroughly think through changes he's thinking about implementing. If he has a new creature to fight, he talks with people like piter, asgnny, ambrosius, etc. For crafting, he turns to Ghrae, molime and the like. He can get them to go onto the test server and get immediate results from the pro's. This way he gets constructive feedback on ideas from a player's perspective and he can get a better sense of the whole scheme.

[Awevo]

What I Propose is Have a open discussion of topic on forums.. then a vote - but from the top 2 (active) players in each skill catagory this would give rep to all skills:) and I would trust them all to make a wise vote.

 

2. form a legislative or judical panel of top players (maybe top 2 of ea skill?) (only 24 ppl to deal with)

 

Let Entropy have advisers from all the skills that he feels he can trust to thoroughly think through changes he's thinking about implementing. If he has a new creature to fight, he talks with people like piter, asgnny, ambrosius, etc. For crafting, he turns to Ghrae, molime and the like. He can get them to go onto the test server and get immediate results from the pro's. This way he gets constructive feedback on ideas from a player's perspective and he can get a better sense of the whole scheme.

 

cmon ppl! this game is not only about skills! its mostly about fun, at least thats what its supposed to be IMO. i totally dislike the idea of an "elite council" because noobs should have a vote too. of course, the top players will have a lot of experience which would be necessary i a council, but arent the opinions of players who dont play EL for many years almsot as important as the opinions of pr0s? i mean how do you feel when you start playing and you are told "yes its kinda democracy, but youre noob, and youre opinion doesnt count a smeg, and that wont change for many years"?? by that way, soo youll have a game only played by pros coz the new players dont wont to feel like non-valuable - at least when there is said to be a democracy or despotism or whatever.

 

if there was a council it should be a by players elected one. this would still favor top player coz nobody will vote for you if you just started playing, but at least you can vote for the council and the players you may know.

 

were not talking about the stuff ent wants to change any way, coz hell change taht anyway ....... if ent isnt sure whether to do a change or not, im pretty sure hell find some good advice without too many efforts.

 

now were talking about things that ent wants to be decided by the players themselves. and that can only be done by either a council elected by players, or by the players themselves, which would be polls.

 

as to councils - ent said it didnt work as it should when they tried it. i'd still favor a new try.

 

as to polls - if theres a poll between two options - what else could you do as to consider the option with more of the votes, meaning over 50%, as elected? some said 60% is a majority.... yeah but if neither of both has 60%? what would that mean then?? chose a third option?

 

hope i managed to add some new aspects/opinions to this discussion

[Entropy]

I just wonder if this 50/60/70/whatever majority means a share of all players or only players reading forums/speaking English/etc.

I'm not sure if this, in my opinion very important, issue has been addressed at all.

If it was up to me I would rather start with activating all players in forums, then think about a way to provice some democracy.

Oh, I don't think democracy or anything similar might work in this case.

 

The important forum votes are announced in the game, so everyone can vote.

Also, everyone can get their account registered if they PM Aislin (or me) in the game. We can't have automatic registrations due lots of spambots that register every day. I don't want to have v1agr4 and lolita posts every day.

 

As for the English thing, well, people should learn English. Many people here, including me and you are not native English speakers, yes? Furthermore, voting doesn't require much understanding of the English language, they can always ask a friend to translate it for them.

[luciferx]

personally I like the way things are run now, the benevolent dictator thing seems to work well. and the community having too much control kinda scares me

 

I agree the community as a whole would involve many people who should not be voting yet...

 

an example would be the age restriction at 18 in the USA to vote... had children been able to vote parents would get strict fines for making them eat vegetables, school would be optional, etc...

 

maybe if a forum account would have to hit a certain "age" or time period first that would be a good idea.

 

but in an overall democracy with no limitations I'd trust a dictator more than a newbie... History has shown large groups of stupid people who don't know any better to do horrific things

[brettmck]

i personally dont think el should be a democracy especially on major changes to the game.

 

I think Teh god should make the decisions as he has been and if there is a poll it should be for feedback to help ent see what the players are thinking about the subject then he can go think about it and make his decision cause i really dont think the majority of el has the necessary knowledge to make these choices.

 

The idea of making councils, advisory panel etc. is a great idea in theory but it doesnt seem to have worked in the past and i think having us vote for these people will make the whole thing a bit too political and less of a game. I think if ent decides he needs player input on a certain topic i am sure he will ask the people in game that know what they are talking about if he wishes and then make his decision that way but at the end of the day ent should be the one in control of the direction of the game cause i think he will make the best decisions not the players themselves.

[Kidberg]

i personally dont think el should be a democracy especially on major changes to the game.

 

I think Teh god should make the decisions as he has been and if there is a poll it should be for feedback to help ent see what the players are thinking about the subject then he can go think about it and make his decision cause i really dont think the majority of el has the necessary knowledge to make these choices.

 

The idea of making councils, advisory panel etc. is a great idea in theory but it doesnt seem to have worked in the past and i think having us vote for these people will make the whole thing a bit too political and less of a game. I think if ent decides he needs player input on a certain topic i am sure he will ask the people in game that know what they are talking about if he wishes and then make his decision that way but at the end of the day ent should be the one in control of the direction of the game cause i think he will make the best decisions not the players themselves.

agreed totally imo

[korrode]

Eternal Lands should be renamed into "Chaos Lands".

Hmmm "Chaos Lands"... I like it! Shall we vote?