• Hail Guest!
    We're looking for Community Content Contribuitors to Stratics. If you would like to write articles, fan fiction, do guild or shard event recaps, it's simple. Find out how in this thread: Community Contributions
  • Greetings Guest, Having Login Issues? Check this thread!
  • Hail Guest!,
    Please take a moment to read this post reminding you all of the importance of Account Security.
  • Hail Guest!
    Please read the new announcement concerning the upcoming addition to Stratics. You can find the announcement Here!

(Player Event) ICY Proposal for: Siege Community Council

MissEcho

Babbling Loonie
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
UNLEASHED
Hi guys

I have been reading all the threads on the idea to do a community council over the past few days. It seems a lot of stakeholders have differing ideas on what is 'best' etc and I am not sure whether you will get to concensus so thought I would offer up a few ideas to assist facilitation of the thing.

Before I post please know that I have zero intention of getting involved in the politics of the shard, have no desire to be a governor or town leader etc. I am totally impartial, my guild consists of one person, me, and although I am allied, they are a mixed bag of pvm and pvp chars.

I would in all likelihoood never attend a meeting as I am generally gonna be in bed (Australian) unless they hold them in USA evening perhaps. I will always comment on stuff it it involves my gameplay tho :). I have zero problems with pk's unless they kill me inside my own house :p What they do out in the field is up to them, this is siege. I don't even really care overmuch about the smack talk as long as it doesn't get super personal and malicious. Just as many blues as reds are capable of nastiness etc.

Having said that it seems the main 'sticking' points are

1. venue
2. how to include 'everyone' (Blues/Reds Pvm/Pvp)
3. format for getting info to/from the people (forums etc)

So to that end I submit the following as an 'offer' and possibly a way to move forward that will hopefully satisfy the majority. If you aren't interested then all good too. The venue will be used for other ICY events in any case so it is no skin off my nose.

Regards MissE
 

MissEcho

Babbling Loonie
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
UNLEASHED
Proposal for Siege Community Council.

Could I suggest this format for

Meetings/Communications:

Regular Monthly meetings be held by the Siege Community Council (now SCC). The SCC would consist of:


Moderator - Kelmo
Gov of Britain
Gov of Jhelom
Gov of Minoc
Gov of Moonglow
Gov of New Magincia
Gov of Skara Brae
Gov of Trinsic
Gov of Vesper
Gov of Yew
Player Town Rep - Gifane
Player Town Rep - Safe Haven

And whomever else/groups the above SCC feels should have a rep. The quorum should be a minimum of 6 (50%) (note: if you have more people at these meetings NOTHING will ever be decided as it will be totally impossible. Even with 12 it will be a handful.)

It should be the aim of each Governor to consult with citizens and players outside of the regular SCC meetings to make sure input is obtained. Be that via Stratics, mailboxes, other forums, in game conversations etc. How each SCC Member does this is up to them.

A thread titled ‘Submissions to SCC' should be stickied on Stratics so that any other issues by players can be put there to ensure equal access. Kelmo (as moderator) should pull those issues from the thread to bring to the meetings and report back accordingly. The Gilfane rep should pull items from their forum, and if Safe Haven has a forum likewise.

A 'Guild' forum should be set up by the Siege Community Council (council members only for posting but viewable by all, administered by Kelmo/moderator) for posting of meeting minutes, polls, results of ballots, submissions to Mesanna/Devs etc. This will save SP forum in stratics getting bogged down in threads.

At four 4 designated areas Communication Hubs should be established for the SCC business. Gilfane, Safe Haven, Umbra Hub, Central Hub. Make these obvious so that all players will eventually learn what they look like and what they are for. This allows all players access to submit ideas in writing as well as verbally to Governors of their towns and via forums, and to participate in ballots. See Graphic below.

Venue for meetings:

I am offering to manage a neutral venue in Malas, at my Event House in the Ice Cove, to hold the monthly SCC meeting.


upload_2017-1-17_13-15-21.png



How it would work is:

Siege Community Council (now SCC) would advise me via Stratics the date and time of the meeting.

SCC will provide a set of teleport tiles. One of which will be placed permanently (as marked above) on the third floor theatrette in my Event House.

The other port will be held by SCC and they can decide where to put it to allow people access to the meeting hall. (I would suggest a safe starting house where SCC committee members can be friended and then allowed to use the port. Invitee’s to the meeting can also be friended for one off visits to the meetings. The ONLY way in or out of the theatre is via the teleport tile and ‘leave house’ function. I will set all Ice Cove doors to Co-Owner only. And make the house PUBLIC for the duration of the meeting. So there is no need to friend at the Ice Cove end. After the meeting the house will revert to private.

Each member of the council will have an allotted seat at the table.

Additional seating for guests will be provided against the wall, although you must try to ensure they remain observers so that it is manageable.

The Moderator can open the meeting and advise of any agenda if the meeting has been called for a particular reason/issue.

Committee members should take it in turns to chair the meeting. Ie Gov of Britain, Gov of Jhelom etc (although any SCC member not wishing to chair can ‘pass’ and the chair moves to the next member).

Committee members should take it in turns to record the meeting and post a record of the meeting on Stratics or by the moderator if using specific SCC Guild Forum. Unless one member wishes to volunteer to always do the record. Other SCC members can post to their relative forums as desired.

Each member of the council can speak at the podium on issues submitted to them. (Suggest maximum of 5 minutes ea and this should be timed by the moderator.)

At the end of each governors business, discussion on those particular topics raised may be held (again 5 mins) and any voting done. Ballot boxes may be used/supplied if things need to be voted on. Where there is a deadlock on issues, the ballot box can be used to make the decision with a 'majority' rules decider.

Decisions reached and/or submissions discussed that require further input can be put on stratics for wider discussion by all players.

Shard wide meetings to announce decisions/gather more input on specific issues may also be held by the SCC at public guardzone venues, Nujelm Palace has a decent meeting room, New Magincia, Skara Community Hall, the Marsh Hall in Vesper or other as decided by the SCC.

End Proposal

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other info:

As to the above the venue is 'good to go'. All that needs to be done to get up and running is supply of a teleport pad and agreement of the participants and you can start meeting immediately.

If you set up communication hubs, as suggested above, your first 'community' ballot could be placed at umbra hub and ask if people are satisfied with the makeup of the committee, answer 'yay or nay' and if nay ask them to submit their idea on a book in the mail box. Note ONLY one box at either umbra hub or central hub should be used to run public ballots so that only one vote per char is accepted. If 80% of the shard is happy with the set up of the committee it should 'pass'. Also note with Ballot Boxes the resulting votes should be 'screenshot' before lifting the box or the votes will be lost. The screenshot is requried to record the vote.

Kelmo would be co-owned to the venue as 'moderator' to allow placing of ballot box, chests, banning/kicking , although would be unlikely to be needed with the set up above.

Anways, as said the offer is there. It is neutral and good to go. I will use the venue for 'other' ICY events that are in the pipeline and will redesign the seating space to suit what I need and put back as is for meetings etc. I will not be upset or anything if you don't wanna go this way, but frankly, having a LOT of experience in player events and from meetings in real life I think you will struggle a bit if too many stakeholders all want a say and get bogged down in the trivia rather than the substance of getting things done for Siege :)

Cheers MissE
 
Last edited:

FrejaSP

Queen of The Outlaws
Professional
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
Campaign Patron
Lots of good ideas in the thread but the place seem a little small. Also keep it simple for now, easy to find a place for meeting, I know Starcon offered a place too and I'm sure a lot more want to do

Regular Monthly meetings be held by the Siege Community Council (now SCC). The SCC would consist of:


Moderator - Kelmo
Gov of Britain
Gov of Jhelom
Gov of Minoc
Gov of Moonglow
Gov of New Magincia
Gov of Skara Brae
Gov of Trinsic
Gov of Vesper
Gov of Yew
Player Town Rep - Gifane
Player Town Rep - Safe Haven

And whomever else/groups the above SCC feels should have a rep. The quorum should be a minimum of 6 (50%) (note: if you have more people at these meetings NOTHING will ever be decided as it will be totally impossible. Even with 12 it will be a handful.)
Here we have the first problem, most of this Gov in NPC and Player Towns are GIL so GIL will always win a vote unless all have to agree. Intil we get more Communities to join, that be guilds, player towns, hunting groups, crafter groups, PK groups, you name it, voting on anything won't work.

edited: I did not finish this post as RL made me leave my PC

I do believe Coco did a very nice work with this setup and there are lots of good ideas when we get to there.

Right now, I feel we need to debat what groups who can accept and most importen try to get them to join. Maybe include Guild/Alliance leaders of guilds/alliances of 10+ players (not chars)

I also believe at least half of the meeting should be open to public some what like the EM runned Governor meetings.

I do agree to a Community (Guild) forum with access for the Co-ordinator and the Govenors, Mayors, other community leaders.

A sticky thread used for main info is a must too.
 
Last edited:

kelmo

Old and in the way
Professional
Alumni
Supporter
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
UNLEASHED
Dread Lord
The following is opinion and not necessarily official policy.

Freja, what needs to happen is for players to run for Governor. I do not want to see an unwieldy crowded council.
There are three methods to gain a seat. Become a governor, become a recognized town/society or become the leader/moderator of the council.

Any particular group can band together to attempt to win a council seat. A band of pirates decides that it wants a voice on the council. They choose Jhelom.
The pirates choose a leader and then campaign for that leader and rustle up the votes to win.

Alternatively, any particular group can approach and ally with a sitting Gov/Council member and have influence in that matter. This could work for any group whether it be crafters
or murderous PKs.

Building an officially recognized town/community is difficult but possible.

I do not buy into the Gil has too many Governors nonsense at all. These players cared enough to run and care deeply for the community of Siege. I feel the numbers are not skewed in fact.
If Jhelom had a Governor the split might very well be 5 to 4.
 

Blind Otto

Seasoned Veteran
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
I don't see that the large representation of Gilfane has to be an issue any more than the number of elves or gargoyles on the council has to be an issue.

Speaking for myself, because I don't speak for anyone else, I am currently on the council to represent Minoc, as the governor of Minoc.
If Minoc's citizens want me to bring anything before the council, I will do that.

If Gilfane's representative (for example) tables a point for discussion that I feel will be harmful to Minoc's citizens, then my duty is to oppose that point.
I expect my guildmates to respect my decisions, just as I would respect theirs - but respect does not have to imply agreement.

Now, I will concede that people who spend a lot of time together tend to think in similar ways.
Agreement between those people is likely. But it is not a given.

For instance, I (repeatedly) asked a specific question at the last meeting.
I received an excellent answer to that question after the meeting - in great detail.
If I had received that answer at the time that I asked the question, I would probably have voted on a certain matter differently.

We are not all sheep, and no guild has the right to demand that its members vote in a certain way.
They do have the right to request, to debate, and to campaign for whatever they want to.
 

FrejaSP

Queen of The Outlaws
Professional
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
Campaign Patron
I do not buy into the Gil has too many Governors nonsense at all. These players cared enough to run and care deeply for the community of Siege. I feel the numbers are not skewed in fact.
If Jhelom had a Governor the split might very well be 5 to 4.
I only see it as an issue if this five GIL is enough to decide everything in the council, maybe it need to be 75% who agree, when voting for something.
 

FrejaSP

Queen of The Outlaws
Professional
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
Campaign Patron
r instance, I (repeatedly) asked a specific question at the last meeting.
I received an excellent answer to that question after the meeting - in great detail.
If I had received that answer at the time that I asked the question, I would probably have voted on a certain matter differently.
We needed a moderator badly :p
 

Lord Kurt Cobain

Journeyman
Stratics Veteran
I do like the proposed format. However GIL should not represent over 50% of the council. That is disgusting.



Are we here to solve problems? Or create more?



Obviously a few GIL members on the council is understandable, but there needs to be a hard cap on certain alliance members participation in a NEUTRAL council.


Secondly, I'm not sure that the governors should automatically have a bid into the council. If GIL were to have many members on the council, it should be those that have the least conflict of interest with the community at large, and be those who seem to be generally unbiased and have their emotions under control.

The above doesn't just apply to GIL, but I believe should be the criteria for anyone seeking a seat on the council.
 

Victim of Siege

Grand Poobah
Governor
Alumni
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
UNLEASHED
Lots of good ideas in the thread but the place seem a little small. Also keep it simple for now, easy to find a place for meeting, I know Starcon offered a place too and I'm sure a lot more want to do



Here we have the first problem, most of this Gov in NPC and Player Towns are GIL so GIL will always win a vote unless all have to agree. Intil we get more Communities to join, that be guilds, player towns, hunting groups, crafter groups, PK groups, you name it, voting on anything won't work.

edited: I did not finish this post as RL made me leave my PC

I do believe Coco did a very nice work with this setup and there are lots of good ideas when we get to there.

Right now, I feel we need to debat what groups who can accept and most importen try to get them to join. Maybe include Guild/Alliance leaders of guilds/alliances of 10+ players (not chars)

I also believe at least half of the meeting should be open to public some what like the EM runned Governor meetings.

I do agree to a Community (Guild) forum with access for the Co-ordinator and the Govenors, Mayors, other community leaders.

A sticky thread used for main info is a must too.
Freja, there is an empty seat for Governors, i think that if Gilfane was trying to take over the Governerships, they wouldn't have left that empty. perhaps someone in your alliance should request to have Bennu make them governor, i will sponsor them no matter who it is. let's stop making excuses and being negative here folks let's just get it done.
 

MissEcho

Babbling Loonie
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
UNLEASHED
I only see it as an issue if this five GIL is enough to decide everything in the council, maybe it need to be 75% who agree, when voting for something.
You only need 50% of members to form a quorum (ie you can't make any decision unless half the council is there ie 6/12) You may decide the quorum only needs to be 33%. I used 50% as a guide. It is better that at least half the council is in attendance if you really want to represent the players. Less than that the meeting should be cancelled and resheduled.

What amount of people need to 'agree' to pass anything is up to the council to decide, you may take any % you like, 51%, 60%, 75% 100%. Obviously the higher the % that need to agree the less stuff will be passed. As a rule tho, in any government be it here or in real life 51% is generally the figure used to pass legislation/rules or you will get deadlocked at every turn. (Technically if the quorum for a meeting is 50% (6 players) and if 'voting agreement' is 51% to pass anything then the vote would need to be 4 'for' and 2 'against' any item up for a vote. Hence why a quorum of 50% would be the absolute minimum I would suggest.

As Kelmo says if players don't 'like' the makeup of the council they have the opportunity every 6 Months to stand for governor and elect who they want. You cannot complain about one group having more representation if they take the time to stand for election and get voted in. In any democracy you 'gotta be in it to win it'. If you're not then you get who is.
 

MissEcho

Babbling Loonie
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
UNLEASHED
I do like the proposed format. However GIL should not represent over 50% of the council. That is disgusting.
Actually again, as Kelmo says, if players don't 'like' the makeup of the council they have the opportunity every 6 Months to stand for governor and elect who they want. The ideas of the governors is to represent the people in their towns, if they don't like somone or want better respresentation by candidates of their choice then vote them out and elect who you want.

Also just because someone has a 'GIL' tag does not mean they will automatically vote as a group and just because someone doesn't have a GIL tag does not mean they won't vote with them either. It shoud not be an 'us' and 'them' thing. I expect that in most cases there shouldn't be any contention if the aim is to get things done for Siege. I would of thought on most things everyone would be in agreement if it is a positive thing. Obviously things to do with 'combat' do become contentious but that is over with from what I see and things need to move on, we all play in the same sandpit so all have the 'same' rules to deal with. Whether you 'agree' with the rules is by the by, they are what they are and everyone has the same set. The only way to 'change' them is to get active, and the only method by which you can do this is get yourself a place on the committee by the voting system in place.

There are currently 12 spots, which as I said in my proposal I think is enough. Every player has the opportunity to run for Governor. Most don't as they can't be bothered.

It is what it is NOW, lets move on and get stuff actually going, and if the 'Current' council is not your cup of tea, get organised and ready for the next election. The proposed venue is 'neutral'. I have NO interest in being on council, I am not guilded with any of the participants, and have no intention of it. I am here to run events and make a motza on my shop :p so that I can keep upping the prize money for events.

Cheers MissE :)
 

Lord Kurt Cobain

Journeyman
Stratics Veteran
@MissEcho

You're clearly missing the point of what we are saying. So let me say it again, in the most simplest way:

WE DONT WANT GIL HAVING MAJORITY OF THE COUNCIL.

I dont care if they took the time to monopolize the government of the towns. And no, we will not wait another "6 months" so people can run for re-election. And to be honest, being governor of a town means nothing for this shard outside of RP.

Get the RP out of your head and think about what is best for Siege as a whole. No offense, but just because you came up with a system dosnt make it the system. I, and I assume many others, would rather have this done right the 1st time around, then have to go through this again in "6 months," and force something that dosnt fit.

GIL has had control of the shard for years, and they've let it fall apart completely. This isnt about RP, this is about change, and forming a council of people who can best represent the Siege community as a whole, and not just one segment. Get it done right, select a representative from each segment of the population, and make it truly democratic ffs.
 

Lord Frodo

Stratics Legend
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
UNLEASHED
@MissEcho

You're clearly missing the point of what we are saying. So let me say it again, in the most simplest way:

WE DONT WANT GIL HAVING MAJORITY OF THE COUNCIL.

I dont care if they took the time to monopolize the government of the towns. And no, we will not wait another "6 months" so people can run for re-election. And to be honest, being governor of a town means nothing for this shard outside of RP.

Get the RP out of your head and think about what is best for Siege as a whole. No offense, but just because you came up with a system dosnt make it the system. I, and I assume many others, would rather have this done right the 1st time around, then have to go through this again in "6 months," and force something that dosnt fit.

GIL has had control of the shard for years, and they've let it fall apart completely. This isnt about RP, this is about change, and forming a council of people who can best represent the Siege community as a whole, and not just one segment. Get it done right, select a representative from each segment of the population, and make it truly democratic ffs.
LMAO So why didn't you run for Governor then? Did you even vote, probably not.
 

Lord Kurt Cobain

Journeyman
Stratics Veteran
You really need to go through and read the entirety of what I said before you start de-railing threads and trolling, as you are so accustomed to doing here.
 

Razz

Sage
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
I see several people trying to get you to understand the facts Amadeus. Perhaps less aggressive chatter and more understanding on your part would benefit us all.
 

FrejaSP

Queen of The Outlaws
Professional
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
Campaign Patron
Froodo would you still believe the governors represent Siege if we in 6 month get a 6 or more governors from the dark Side. What stop players from get let say Atlantic players make a char here and vote in 2 Sith, 2 HI-5, 1 Luna Boys, and the rest being 2 GIL, 1 B^A, one Vic or one TDO together with 2 player towns?
Some would love that but most would not feel that council should set rules for Siege or decide what we need Devs to do for us.
The Governors can't be basis for the Siege Community council, we need more stabel player groups as basis.
 
Last edited:

MissEcho

Babbling Loonie
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
UNLEASHED
LOL good luck guys, I am totally out of the discussion now. The offer to use my premises stands.

I havent seen any other viable proposals on how to run things, so basically if you have a better solution put it up. If not go with the flow and just CHILL OUT. I made a few comments on how all players are/can be included in Baby Dolls other thread (called: Kelmo please elaborate..) so perhaps read that if you haven't already.

Anyways good luck with it all !
 

FrejaSP

Queen of The Outlaws
Professional
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
Campaign Patron
I just tried to show the risk if the table get turned to make people open their eyes. I'm sure not trying to make that happen but if this groups feel left out now, it may happen.
 

Lord Kurt Cobain

Journeyman
Stratics Veteran
I see several people trying to get you to understand the facts Amadeus. Perhaps less aggressive chatter and more understanding on your part would benefit us all.

Ok, let me restate for you more clearly, since you seem to have trouble understanding anything that I have to say.
I would also like to add a few more points to clear up any misunderstandings about my motives.



1.) Most of us would not approve of a majority in the council by any one guild or alliance. This goes beyond my relationship with GIL. I would also not approve of my own guild having a majority share of the council, or any other for that matter. Freja brought up a good point in another thread: you all would not approve if SITH, HI-5, LB, or any other guild somehow achieved majority in the council. Which brings me to my next point.




2.) There is a fundamental flaw in the system that Eshelle proposed. That being: automatic seats on the council for governors. As I said before, I believe this council needs to be something beyond RP, and being a governor of a town just because your guild voted you in, should not be a shoe in for a seat at the table. Instead, council members should probably be elected by the population at large, and in my opinion there should only be 7 or so members (in a perfect world, 1 representing each segment of the population), as the number 12 seems a little odd for this.



Your comment is precisely why we don't need one guild running the council. You get your feelings hurt any time someone brings up an opposing view point, so how does that fare well for what was proposed?

Eshelle brought up a lot of quality suggestions, however I believe that her system as a whole is imperfect (not-discrediting her) but there does need to be more discussion about tweaks; which should be what the rest of this thread is for. So unless you have something constructive to say for the sake of argument, please refrain from posting nonsense.
 

Lord Kurt Cobain

Journeyman
Stratics Veteran
What is your proposal, Mozart? What do you bring?

I really dont understand you. You're supposed to be head of the council, but you clearly did not read a thing I just wrote? Smh.


Now I'm questioning your competency as a leader...


Clearly you saw my name, saw that I posted something, and instead of reading what I had to say, and responding accordingly, you instead chose to post bait and question me on something that I had already just explained...


Is that what your plan is when running the council? Ignore what people you don't agree with have to say and then ask them redundant questions instead of providing your own insight/comments on what was just proposed?
 

Lord Kurt Cobain

Journeyman
Stratics Veteran
LOL, you never fail to disappoint.

If this is lackluster attitude is how you plan on running the council, do enjoy your RP meetings with GIL. Because that's all its ever going to be. Clearly you guys are incompetent at making decisions for the better of the shard, which is why we're even having this discussion in the first place.

You don't deserve to even be on the council, because you're not qualified to be a leader. I would get into it more, but unfortunately stratics has its limit on what can be said. But clearly it pays to have friends on the forums. Politics at its finest, you gotta love it!



If anyone has a quality point to make, please do so and I will respond accordingly if I feel that my input is necessary. Until then, au revoir.
 

MissEcho

Babbling Loonie
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
UNLEASHED
1.) Most of us would not approve of a majority in the council by any one guild or alliance. This goes beyond my relationship with GIL. I would also not approve of my own guild having a majority share of the council, or any other for that matter. Freja brought up a good point in another thread: you all would not approve if SITH, HI-5, LB, or any other guild somehow achieved majority in the council. Which brings me to my next point.
I think the existing Governorships was a way to 'start' the thing. By using what is already in game which is supposed to be player 'elected'. Sure noone wants to see one group or other be 'in charge', however, please read my comments in the other thread on how all players are and can be 'included' especially during the next 6mths until elections are reheld.

I reckon the way to view the council is a 'Co-ordination' body, not a 'Decision' body. Any 'decisions' would be put to public vote either by ballot in game or poll on forum. That is the ONLY fair way of obtaining representation and results would have to stand, it is the only way of trying to give the maximum players a voice. Sure if one group controlled the council and decided their word was law all you would get would be people going 'stuff you' and totally ignoring your decisions anyways. I know I would be the first in the STUFF YOU line :)

It is not like they can 'do' anything, that is why I am a little perplexed at the amount of animosity this discussion is generating. What are they gonna do? Kill me? They already can lol.

The way I think you seriously have to look at it is (and I don't mean you personally, just for discussion in general) :

- that you cannot have 30 people on a committee or at a meeting and ever get anything done/agreed on.
- You will never get everyone agreeing on everything EVER (accept this comment)
- in 'real' governments I tend to vote 'left' right now we have a right wing govt in charge. The public vote was 51% right, 49% left. Hardly a huge majority but I have to suck it up as it is what it is.
- if you want to move this forward then compromises have to be made. I am sorry but right now all I see are people who are stuck in their own 'heads and views' and won't give ground on anything. It is fine to have a different opinion, but if you do, don't say "I want this" without putting up the proposal on how to achieve it. It is a pity as things could move forward if everyone put past animosities where they belong, in the past.

2.) There is a fundamental flaw in the system that Eshelle proposed. That being: automatic seats on the council for governors. As I said before, I believe this council needs to be something beyond RP, and being a governor of a town just because your guild voted you in, should not be a shoe in for a seat at the table. Instead, council members should probably be elected by the population at large, and in my opinion there should only be 7 or so members (in a perfect world, 1 representing each segment of the population), as the number 12 seems a little odd for this.
I only took what was 'already' being proposed as the 'council' it actually wasn't 'MY' idea. I can see merit in other ways to decide. Personally I believe 12 is too many and 9 would be a good number but how do you propose they are selected? If you listed ppl on forum in a poll eg Mr Smith, Mrs Jones, Mr Black ....say 30 candidates, and had people 'vote' what would happen is the biggest guild would vote in their people and there would be a total uproar. Do you put the names in a hat? Again, you the person pulling the names out would be deemed biased. I just don't 'see' any other way of doing it. So as much as the governor system may not be ideal, it is really the 'best' we have right now, but it can be made more representative by others stepping up to the plate and organising their group to get someone elected.

Fact is GIL only has so many of the governorships as no other groups could be bothered. They nominated and elected themselves as noone else was even challenging, and frankly, it was before this whole discussion and idea of a Council was even put up so you can hardly accuse them of stacking something they didn't know was gonna exist :).

There is one governorship still vacant so I am told. If particular 'groups' wanted a seat on the council it is easy to nominate and vote if you have the support. One guild could not 'dominate' unless they truely had a huge guild to start with. You can only vote once in one town, it is not like if a member of GIL voted in Brit they can also vote in Jhelom. I doubt if more than 3-4 people actually voted in any town so if your guild or the crafters guild or whatever wanted a spot on council I am sure if they got their act together they would get 20 or so votes. As much as gil has 247 members, they like most guilds probably have a huge number of them inactive. There is no point to them 'taking' over the governorships, as it is a useless and toothless body anyways.

Eshelle brought up a lot of quality suggestions, however I believe that her system as a whole is imperfect (not-discrediting her) but there does need to be more discussion about tweaks; which should be what the rest of this thread is for. So unless you have something constructive to say for the sake of argument, please refrain from posting nonsense.
The whole thing will need tweaking it was a basic proposal to try and move stuff on. I expanded how things could work in that other thread, they are just my ideas, but you still need a forum to actually get them implemented that doesnt involve 40 ppl yelling at each other.

I want to actually see what it is people actually 'want' for siege, so far it is all about procedure and nothing about 'issues'. I was just trying to cut through the 'procedure' crap so that issue could actually be put up lol.

Anyways, just commented as I was named directy in your post. All good.

I am still actually wondering what it is that the council is actually gonna 'decide' or try to achieve. My comment in the other thread shows my level of knowing what they are. (all I could think of was a 'bin in ter mur!)
 

Lady Lavendar

Seasoned Veteran
Governor
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
Campaign Supporter
I believe some of this discussion of having a "King's Council" or Siege Council came about because the current EM Bennu does not hold Governor Meetings, which basically happen on all the other shards with the EM playing the part of King Blackthorn. Some of us thought that the shard could benefit by continuing to have a "King's Council" or Siege Council where the Governors met, as they did previously. The idea was brought in to have a possible "King" or Moderator, or some kind of head person to steer the council, which is what Kelmo is trying to do. Then suggestions were made to add player towns, which brought up Safe Haven and Gilfane.

Now proposing not to have Governors on the council is kind of a leap toward throwing away the original intention of having the council of Governors plus certain representatives from community groups such as the player towns, which I thought was both for the benefit of Siege, as a whole, and to have a collective voice.

I am currently a Governor of Skara Brae, and personally am interested in helping have more community on Siege, whether through player run events, or the Siege Community Council. I also have a home in both Safe Haven and in Gilfane. As for my background, I've been on Siege since about 2000, and have been the guild leader of a couple old historic guilds.

I would prefer not to see everything break down over concerns that one group or another have too many seats. Frankly, someone should go ask EM Bennu to be installed in the one vacant seat, if anyone else wants to hold a Governor position this term.
 

Lord Kurt Cobain

Journeyman
Stratics Veteran
believe some of this discussion of having a "King's Council" or Siege Council came about because the current EM Bennu does not hold Governor Meetings, which basically happen on all the other shards with the EM playing the part of King Blackthorn. Some of us thought that the shard could benefit by continuing to have a "King's Council" or Siege Council where the Governors met, as they did previously.

If this is the case then we need to decide what we are exactly discussing here, because there seems to be some confusion.



Are we talking about a council of governors that RPs with the EM. (which is fine)

-or-

Are we talking about a council of Siege players that want to collectively make decisions on how to secure the best possible future for Siege and its players.
To me this would include community duties like recruiting (shard and guild), new player guidance, economics, real estate etc. And then larger duties like direct interaction with developers.



To me, this is about taking advantage of the last true chance of a revitalization of Siege. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has noticed the population and activity surge. My hope is that we can keep this momentum moving forward, by providing a better gameplay environment than has been seen in the recent past. I want people to keep coming here to play, but that's not going to happen on its own.
 
Last edited:

Lady Lavendar

Seasoned Veteran
Governor
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
Campaign Supporter
I am attempting to clarify why all the Governors were considered to have seats on the Council, as this discussion started out to be how we get a King's Council going, since we do not have one on Siege. When EM Hawker left and EM Bennu started here, he stated there would be no more Governor meetings with King Blackthorn on Siege. I think that possibly he didn't have the time. Another thing to consider is that we may get another EM, at which point the roleplay King's Council with the Governors might be back in place.

It is important to me, as well, to recruit people to this shard, and to move forward for the good of the shard. I think several of the current Governors would agree that this was of great importance to the shard. I wished to be a Governor to promote community events on Siege, and do want to see the shard grow. The idea of this Council came out of the fact that we no longer have a "King's Council" on Siege, so that is where we started, with the Governor seats. As I mentioned, there is still one open seat. I know on other shards, the EM have been very willing to install someone in the vacant seat if there is an applicant. If anyone on Siege is interested in the vacant seat, then just write up a short resume and submit it to EM Bennu. I don't know if he would be willing to install someone, but there is no harm in trying to do that.

As for whether people are in one guild or another, I don't believe any of us now in the roles of Governors had any intention of taking over a council, as there wasn't even one when we ran. All of us have our own reasons for running, but I think we would all agree that the welfare of Siege is important to us, or we wouldn't have put the effort into running for Governor.

I appreciate the ICY offer of a place to meet, and I appreciate all the input from everyone. Thank you, Kelmo, for attempting to lead us in establishing a council on Siege.
 
Last edited:

FrejaSP

Queen of The Outlaws
Professional
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
Campaign Patron
Frankly, someone should go ask EM Bennu to be installed in the one vacant seat, if anyone else wants to hold a Governor position this term.
We have tried but EM Bennu do not reply his e-mails. I would guess several others had tried.

I also understand it started out as a replacement for the missing King Council and the Governors should be a part of it.
I also understand not want to have 20 council members or so.

Maybe we really do need to rethink this, who should be in a Siege Community Council? Maybe King's Council should hold their meetings and send maybe 2 to represent them, then one from each Player town, one from White Council, one from Vice Council, one from Dark Council and maybe we will see a Crafter Council, etc. Not to keep one group out but to try to cover more groups without being to many in the council.

I believe we should debat it and all try to join the debat with open ears and in a respectful way.

Lets have some brainstorming and forget who we don't like and listen to their voice.

We do agree about one thing, we want to keep this shard a live.

I do believe all who are joining this debat so far do care about our shard and the community
 

Lord Frodo

Stratics Legend
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
UNLEASHED
Froodo would you still believe the governors represent Siege if we in 6 month get a 6 or more governors from the dark Side. What stop players from get let say Atlantic players make a char here and vote in 2 Sith, 2 HI-5, 1 Luna Boys, and the rest being 2 GIL, 1 B^A, one Vic or one TDO together with 2 player towns?
Some would love that but most would not feel that council should set rules for Siege or decide what we need Devs to do for us.
The Governors can't be basis for the Siege Community council, we need more stabel player groups as basis.
What SP is attempting to do is replace the meeting with the EM and having Kelmo do that job. Have you been to these meetings on other shards? A lot of stuff may get asked for but believe me not much ever gets done because all this stuff supposedly goes to Mesanna or maybe the EM decides what does or does not go and it still rarely gets done. People need to E-Mail the Dark Lady herself and ask her why the EM did this because your EM is not responding to your questions. Also the meeting on other shards are open to the public and if anyone wishes to be heard then they are allowed to be heard. Just because you have a Counsel does not mean the rest of SP is silenced. As far as your representatives are concerned they are elected by YOU and if YOU do not get the vote out then it is your fault not the people running. SP is probably the only shard she has met with to discuss your needs so that tells me that she cares about SP as a whole. Your group is going to make requests to the DEVs and it will be the DEVs that so yes or no and as they have more openly listened to SP a lot more than the other shards as to the way SP runs IMHO before anything is done there will be a Stratics discussion with the DEVs just like the VvV discussion with Kyronix and if you liked or disliked the outcome Kyronix did listen and when all was said and done Kyronix had the only vote that counted and made it. UO is not going to say oh this group wants these RULES on SP and do it without talking about it first and then getting the input from the whole shard on the matter for the simple fact they are not going to change stuff every 6 months on the whim of 12 players when an entire shard is effected. SP elected Kelmo as KING and a KING has the deciding vote, he will listen to his subjects, SP Players, and decide what is best for his kingdom. As far as voting goes #1 my 3 SP Chars are not able to vote for 2 reasons #1 I have not picked a city and #2 I do not have the needed resources to make all my chars have a high enough status to vote. Unless there are people out there buying votes or supplying the needed resources to be able to vote believe me Atl is not going to invade SP. What happened to the Guild that tried to RUN SP where did they go and I do not mean Gil. As far as Gil goes do you really believe that they would want to make changes that would destroy SP and drive away the Player base in real. Nobody want to in real destroy a shard at least I hope not but even if they wanted to they would have to convince Kyronix to go along with them and from what I have seen that ain't going to happen. Your Counsel is going to make requests through your representative (Kelmo/EM) to Mesanna/Kyronix and they DEVs/Kyronix will say yes or no not the Counsel. Sorry for the run on.
 

Victim of Siege

Grand Poobah
Governor
Alumni
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
UNLEASHED
If this is the case then we need to decide what we are exactly discussing here, because there seems to be some confusion.



Are we talking about a council of governors that RPs with the EM. (which is fine)

-or-

Are we talking about a council of Siege players that want to collectively make decisions on how to secure the best possible future for Siege and its players.
To me this would include community duties like recruiting (shard and guild), new player guidance, economics, real estate etc. And then larger duties like direct interaction with developers.



To me, this is about taking advantage of the last true chance of a revitalization of Siege. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has noticed the population and activity surge. My hope is that we can keep this momentum moving forward, by providing a better gameplay environment than has been seen in the recent past. I want people to keep coming here to play, but that's not going to happen on its own.
The original intent was to hold our own Kings council meetings, essentially just RP. this was to insert some purpose to the Governors since our EM does not hold the meetings anymore. Then it was suggested that we include other towns and groups to broaden the scope and diversity of the meeting. I am not aware that it was ever intended to become some sort of ruling council of Siege that will try to make changes. if that has become the intention, then I agree with your point that each group should have a representative on the council, and that should only include one Governor. The Governors should have their own meeting to decide how to proceed on the issues at hand and send their chosen speaker to the council meeting. My offer still stands to sponsor someone for the empty Governor slot.
 

Blind Otto

Seasoned Veteran
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
I agree. This whole thing seems like a storm in a teacup to me.

Think about it:

The council will always have no more and probably less power than the shard is willing to give it.
Even if the entire shard agrees (which would be one of the signs of the apocalypse!) the power levels will be "less".

To put that in context, let's take an example - petitioning the devs for something on Siege.
Let's say enough people petition their representatives for a full-size, Luna blue and bright purple statue of the Stygian Dragon on the roof of Umbra bank.
Let's give it neon green claws, just because everone voted that way in my example.

The council puts this to a vote, and it passes unanimously.

Question : What will probably happen next?
Answer : ONE message will go to the devs from the council's spokesperson, requesting this.
NOTE: There is absolutely nothing stopping a person who opposes the idea from sending their viewpoint directly to the devs, and bypassing the council.
That would leave the devs with one message for, and one against.

At the end of the day, the devs would probably respond: "um... purple dragon??? I say thee NAY, drunken revellers!"

So, all fears of the council having too much power are groundless.
The council has less than the total amount of power that we, as Siege's population, are willing to give it.

Start from that point. It's reality. No one here actually has any power, so no one here needs to fear anyone else.
The most we can actually do is move pixels around on a temporary basis.
We should focus on that - after all, it's fun!

The concerns regarding any specific group having too much power can easily be dealt with IF we can ever get a council assembled, and get a first draft of the rules for that council together.

And then, maybe, just maybe, we can move on to something important, like perhaps all those lovely events we were talking about that the council could help with (important: not control. help.)

I'm not saying we should give up - not at all.

I do think a lot of fine ideas have come out of this so far, though. I only hope they don't get lost amid all the shouting.

*goes for a sandwich*

*pauses*

*wonders how many requests the devs will receive today for a blue and purple dragon statue with green claws*
 

Baby Doll

Certifiable
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
The original intent was to hold our own Kings council meetings, essentially just RP. this was to insert some purpose to the Governors since our EM does not hold the meetings anymore. Then it was suggested that we include other towns and groups to broaden the scope and diversity of the meeting. I am not aware that it was ever intended to become some sort of ruling council of Siege that will try to make changes........


Honestly I originally thought the King Kelmo thing was just a joke for a pixel laugh. So I actually went to one-two in game meetings (did not stay entire time). I specifically asked if this was just a role playing event. I guess I did not understand the response correctly, but I took it to mean the goal was to be bigger and included the shard citizens. With hope of maybe having influence with the powers that run UO. I would not have posted word one if this was just the role playing thing. So stepping back until I get a clear idea of what is what.


Nothing but love for ya Siege,

Baby Doll
 
Last edited:

FrejaSP

Queen of The Outlaws
Professional
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
Campaign Patron
I believe some of us also saw it as a way to make thing happen on Siege. We had a debat about Governors and events and there was several good ideas.
I believe the feeling of someone trying to use it to set rules came from the facts, that several, maybe me too, already had ideas for how this should work and when someone choose to overrule Kelmo's lead of the meeting and put a vote up for meeting place, town zone or not, it was clear for me, if GIL had most governors, they would run this council and and others would never have a chance to take part in it.
There had been other issues on the way, where we also saw strong wills trying to get it their way.

We can't make a Siege Community Council, if we have to fight over small problems and some parts of the community only are tolerated, not accepted as a part of the community.

I too took it to mean the goal was to be bigger and included the shard Citizens and I hope we can make it that way. I will go on with making Safe Haven work and include all our SH Citizen, then I hope we can take part in a Siege Community Council and not just a player runner RP King Council they not want to include the whole shard and help make actions and changes happen here.
 

FrejaSP

Queen of The Outlaws
Professional
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
Campaign Patron
I'm the one who started the vote. I did that on my own in a moment of frustration because the meeting was chaos and going nowhere. It wasn't a choice to overrule Kelmo's lead. Wish I hadn't.
I know, I believe we all was frustrated.
I hope we can do better and Kelmo will choose someone to help him moderate it so we not all speak at same time :)

aha >> I guess we could follow Vinny's suggestion. Get Freja and others on board for a council of evildoer's. Support evil guilds, it could be fun ! :naughty-angel:
It may be easier to have 2-4 council and then 2-3 members from each are choosen to represent the council in the Siege Council.
I don't think it need to be build on the alliances we already have as the evil side don't like large alliances as that is = less enemies
Also, I don't think all the Governor and Player towns need to be in one council.

Lets have some brainstorming. I don't think all 3 Council need to work the same way and have same rules for joining.
 

Nurse Miss Maude

Seasoned Veteran
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
Why does there need to be a council? There are governors. Let the governors meet with or without the participation of the king. There is a shard that voted out the king and put in one of their own for RP purposes. LOL Governors, get out there talk to your people, people contact your governor. Governors, bounce ideas off of each other and plan events. Vote it out. I personally do not think guilds or player run towns need a vote. Do it through the governor. If there is not governor for instance as in Toko, then those citizens need to handle it within themselves and decide which town they are loyal to. Each player commits to a town for trade deals ......rrrriiight? And each player voted in elections no matter the geographic location of their home or guild base. So your char is loyal to Brit, then that governor is your voice. You don't like the governor change it in the next election.
Meeting locations....geez just have it in a public building like the castle for now to get things going. If there were regular meetings with the king like on other shards they would be in the castle. You die you die, you just stand there and listen as a ghost. There are claims of this is to want involvement from ALL the players on the shard, well some are solo they won't have a guild or a player run town, but they will have a governor. You aren't going to please all the people all the time on where to meet, just get it going. Work it out as it evolves. Playing, evolving, and getting some interest in events and or RP storylines is the point of all this, yes?
Or am I misunderstanding, is this really all about control? You want new people give them something to do!!
Banning people or not letting them be involved is a little counter productive to building community and getting EVERYONE on the shard involved. That's why just keep it simple have governor meetings that are open to the public. Let the governors do some work!! We have that political system, that's quite enough.
 

FrejaSP

Queen of The Outlaws
Professional
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
Campaign Patron
The Governor towns do not really have much community behind them. I do not find it good enough.
 

GarthGrey

Grand Poobah
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
UNLEASHED
Should I be concerned that people I hardly know at all are speaking so loudly for Siege ? Maybe that's my fault for not being in the know as much as i used to be. Anyway, sorry that my first reply in here didn't bring much to the table, but damn that table's crowded at least. :) :pirate:
 

FrejaSP

Queen of The Outlaws
Professional
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
Campaign Patron
So then why will the governors be on the council? If they are not good enough.
My point is it is a system that is in place and the governors were already going to be on the council, why not just use that?
If you had played the last 2 years, you would had known, we do have some problems on the shard we need to solve as it hurt the shard and stop new players from join the shard.

1. If we want Devs to changes anything to help our item problem, we need to agree about what we want.

2. We also need to work together to make the shard a better place. Make events, get our vendors stocked, make hunts new and lonely players can join etc.

3. Bring PvP back on Siege. If we can get some evil RP up running so it's not just about PK'ing and looting but also about sharing some fun. Maybe some wars between player towns.

No it is not about control, it's about communications and about rebuilding our shard. I believe Guildmasters present the shard way better than the Governors
 
Top