Leadership

Anything MECCG related that doesn't fit in another forum.
The Global Players List is located here.
zarathustra
Ex Council Chairman
Posts: 671
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 9:26 pm

PS~ Great work Mikko!
http://www.alfanos.org
User avatar
Thorsten the Traveller
Ex Council Chairman
Posts: 1764
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Tilburg, Netherlands

[curses his lack of time these days :cry: ]

Zarathustra wrote:
The reason they are here is that they were initiated by CoE members. The reason they will remain here is that they are endorsed by the CoE, and are already comfortable here.... This does not make sense to you? Well, as I said before, you can get some like-minded people elected to the CoE and change things. That's democracy.
It's funny Mark that you have twice referred to the democratic principles of gaining entrance to the CoE as a legitimate way to set things to your own hand. Funny, because I assume from other discussions (partly private) we've had that you're not exactly an advocate of democracy, and also because I'm talking about responsive and responsible government more than setting things to your own hand (don't want to offend any CoE members here by implying they do :wink: ).

First a bit on democracy, then my main problem.
Democracy involves: having alternatives to choose from, open and lively public debate about policy proposals, open proces of decisionmaking, generously informing and/or consulting the people about policies and decisions, representatives that are a resonably fair representation of the community they govern. There's more obviously, but this should do for now.
Now, I'm not saying all these principles should necessarily apply to the CoE, because frankly that's not realistic nor appropiate for a governing body of a small community of people voluntarily playing a ccg. However, since these principles are not in place or do not apply, responsive and responsible government is all the more important! Better to have a responsive/responsible government, than a semi-functional democracy, right? Otherwise you're just using using democracy as a pretext - people vote and shut up! But voting with your feet doesn't work, because the CoE depends on few volunteers and there are few alternatives.

I guess we all agree on this, Mark/Wim said on occasion that people taking initiative should have more of a say on things, I said that's fine but if there's a chance to mobilize support or consult opinions it should be used and not simply set aside because keeping things in own hand is easier (or more to your own convenience). Understandably, it's easier for people that take the initiative to decide and not look back, but that doesn't make it right, does it?

Now the problem. If there is little transparency, and official bodies are used for private/personal initiatives, then that can make people feel iffy (as it should). In the case of the Virtuals, Mark says they are CoE endorsed, but: where is the charter about Virtuals being CoE endorsed, when was it decided, who were informed or consulted, who voted in favor and who against, where can I find the report of that meeting and decision? I fully agree about Virtuals being CoE endorsed, so there's no need to get started there. But nobody has yet explained satisfactorily why CoE can endorse a set of (undemocratically selected) Virtuals, but can't endorse a list with errata like UEP's. That's not the same as making them official btw., and should Virtuals do become official one day (not sure if that's possible), then that's rather distressing, because UEP were agreed upon democratically more than the Virtuals - and I do like the more responsive/consultative design proces now, but designing obviously is not the same as deciding...

If, presuming the UEP were my project (which it isn't), and I didn't like the Virtuals (which I do), then along the proposed line I'd have to run for CoE membership, hope Mark/Joe don't run or get elected (few people are actually voted off) or mouth them off at the CoE meeting, so I can install my own project? That wouldn't be good governance, obviously.

Now, unless we get the other principles of democracy working for CoE (transparency in decisionmaking, policy debate, real alternatives), it's best to avoid the impression of favouritism. Especially when it's about projects trying to renew or revitalize the game or the community! There is a fine line between endorsing (putting the 'CoE approved stamp' on) a project, and initiating or (actively) supporting it. I would prefer to see CoE endorse personal projects, by making public why they do so, and publishing the results, but not placing them under the umbrella of CoE projects. Most of us know who's who and who's doing what, but the CoE is there for everybody. Even though people can obviously play tourneys with whichever virtuals they design, a CoE project would have the more official status, which is exactly why I suppose someone would want it under CoE umbrella. Should there be a definite Virtuals set by the CoE, then CoE would be wise to choose a committee to select that list.

No democracy can go without independent media. As I see it the CoE website should be about informing people about things (decisions, rulings, projects), not about discussing these things or developing private projects.
Mark, you say the projects already have a home here (at CoE website), but that obviously is no more than justifying a status quo without a real argument. Are you implying your (and others') project wouldn't feel at home at meccg.net? My rock in the pond was ment to create ripples, that means it's an opinion that I postulate and hope to get some honest respons to. It was not actually a question. If I'm the only one thinking two forums is a drag, then so be it, but you haven't convinced me Virtuals, for example, are better off here than at meccg.net.

Zarathustra wrote:
I guess what I'm trying to say is: what do you think the CoE should do? (-) What does that governing amount to in your mind? Simply being a figurehead? I can't see what else you would allow, given the number and scope of things you don't want to be on this website
I think I answered this question a bit already, governing in CoE case mainly means making decisions, setting rules/guidlines and possibly providing help for the community (organising events, mailinlist etc). Wouldn't call that just a figurehead. But designing projects isn't done by the government or senate either, they have civil servants for that, but that's not the main issue, because I agree we are few, main issue would be checks and balances. I think the Judge project is very appropiate for CoE, NetRep activity/rulings/CRF also (not the discussions or the obvious rules questions, but that's just because I dislike having two forums), Worlds....stuff that needs necessary uniformity and offical status in general.
Stone-age did not end because man ran out of rocks.
User avatar
Thorsten the Traveller
Ex Council Chairman
Posts: 1764
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Tilburg, Netherlands

Just noticed the board on agendasetting has been opened to all registered members, not sure when this was done, but if it had already been opened before I posted the above post, then I obviously have to take back some of the statements made there.
I wondered why this post didn't generate any comment, could be one of either two things...
In any case, this is really a good thing, not only generates more transparancy, but also creates a bit more understanding for the actions and positions of the the CoE and it's members. Thanks !
Stone-age did not end because man ran out of rocks.
Earendil
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:01 am
Location: Como, Italy
Contact:

Thorsten the Traveller wrote: I wondered why this post didn't generate any comment, could be one of either two things...
...Surely the second... :wink:

:lol:
"...And he said that if I had the cheek to make verses about Earendil in the house of Elrond, it was my affair. I suppose he was right"
User avatar
Thorsten the Traveller
Ex Council Chairman
Posts: 1764
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:44 pm
Location: Tilburg, Netherlands

Haha, well I don't know really, wish I knew :wink: .
Since full agreement or disagreement usually leads to some reaction, it must be either indifference or a wish to let the whole thing rest...
Stone-age did not end because man ran out of rocks.
thorondor
Ex Council Chairman
Posts: 727
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:53 pm
Location: salzburg, austria
Contact:

a wish to let the whole thing rest...
that´s it! and i think not only for me.
your posting came when things stated to calm down again. so at that moment i really didn´t want to start any discussions again.
Earendil
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:01 am
Location: Como, Italy
Contact:

thorondor wrote:
that´s it! and i think not only for me.
your posting came when things stated to calm down again. so at that moment i really didn´t want to start any discussions again.
BTW I still think this has been an error. Alas, we will pay it in the future, I suppose... seems that people are on average more kind and patient than me :wink: .
"...And he said that if I had the cheek to make verses about Earendil in the house of Elrond, it was my affair. I suppose he was right"
Ringbearer
Ex Council Member
Posts: 474
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 3:39 pm

Maybe its time to lock the thread, before trouble starts all over again. The case has been dealt with.
"I used to roll the dice, feel the fear in my enemies eyes."
- Coldplay, Viva la Vida.

Gaming is life, the rest is just dice rolls.
- John Kovalic, Dork Tower
sly southerner
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 6:57 am

Good to see things have settled down and from the huge number of topics and posts both on MECCG.net and here at the COE forum it is pretty clear that we have all moved on.
Post Reply

Return to “Odds, Ends & Hobbit Holes”