General Discussion Thread IX

[IcyCool]

OK here is a caveat before people overreact. I love LEW – I think the judges are fair and the current leadership does a great job running the community. So this is not directed at anyone in particular nor is it an attack.

I, for one, appreciate the care you seem to have for LEW. I care about it too. But if it is a mystery to you as to why some people think that you are attacking them, then let me de-mystify it for you. Some of the things you say come off as deliberately insulting. You may not mean them that way, but there you are. But, as long as people can debate here with reasonably clear heads and a limited amount of malice, then things can progress.

I just have some concerns about the centralization of power over the current gaming community with a few select people. Also the view that they are somehow uniquely qualified for this because they have experience is a bunch of BS.

I've not seen this "uniquely qualified" bit that you keep pushing (please feel free to link to the posts that contain that, as I probably missed them). I will say that the judges have experience, which makes them more qualified to do what they are doing. That isn't to say that anyone couldn't do what the judges do. I think most people could. But why push an in-experienced person into the position when an experienced person is available?

Before, they were just like the rest of us. Saying that hey are the only ones who can now figure out how to successfully run such a community from he ground up (especially since there is a group to turn to for help) without them is, to me, rather an arrogant statement.

Again, I'm sure I missed the discussion, but has anyone said this besides you? If so, I'd like to know, so if you could post a link to the post where it was said, I'd appreciate it.

However, what’s the process for selecting the judges who came after them? It’s voted on by only the current judges themselves. The general membership has no say and will never therefore have a real say in the business of the rules.

You bring up a good point, but are incorrect when you say that the general membership has no say in the rules. That is what proposals are for. If a proposal is made, and then passed, the proposer has had a say in the rules.

Not so much because impropriety is such a frequent thing but that them membership has no reason to believe it might be happening. I say there should be some voting for judges by the community at large. It was proposed and shot summarily down.

General membership voting on everything is a nice idea in theory. And for something like a club with weekly meetings and such, it works. But there is a problem with that on EnWorld. Have you, perchance, seen how long a wait you can run into waiting for some people to post? Getting a general membership vote would take an incredibly long time. If you thought proposals moved slowly now, waiting for the general membership to vote on it would be excruciating, and the system would be pretty close to unworkable. Having a small group of judges (who are pretty active) keeps things running smoothly.

The idea of having the general membership vote on new judges is a decent one, and provided there are a limited number of judges, it could be potentially workable (if the potential judge didn't die of old age before the vote came in ). If, however, the general membership could vote in any number of judges, you would eventually come back the the problem I mentioned above with the general membership voting on everything. That said, I like LEW the way it is right now, but if you wanted to create another Living game with your rules, I'd certainly give it a try.

This I say is too much centralization of authority with so few people. I say the rule should be one judge position for one living community period. That way the communities are indeed unique not influenced by the same people over and over. Now that I’ll caveat with unless no one else steps up to take parts of the development of the world then it can be opened up.

I would say that having only one judge for a living community leaves that community to the whim of a single person. I think that's a bad thing. At least with multiple judges we get different opinions.

Again, in closing, I love LEW, think it’s a great place but would like to do a living community here with an entirely different feel and tone - choices not limitations. I will ask for the help of and most likely will use a lot of the lessons learned on LEW cause why reinvent the wheel.

I'd play in this sort of living community, but with a certain amount of trepidation. I do not have access to all the books, and as such, some of the more powerful character options are not available to me. That means that in a team consisting of characters who are decked out with said options, I will pull less weight and have generally less fun. But I like to play more than I like balance (usually), so that probably won't stand in my way. Just be prepared for my unmodified Whirling Frenzy Orc Barbarian .

As a GM, I don't give any mind to who's a judge and who's not. Heck, KO's character seems to have finaly been the second PC killed, the first one having been reincarnated (Who, I believe, was also a judge). If you think we give more credance to the concerns of a judge, then you're questioning the impartiality of a judge.

I believe my gnome barbarian was the first death (he was the one who was reincarnated), but I'm not a judge (and I currently do not wish to be one). After that a 1st-level Orc barbarian died after smarting off to the crew of a ship - while he was aboard. And then I think KO's character Ashnar bought the farm via Phantasmal Killer in "Under the Volcano".

 

[El Jefe]

It doesn't help you address my comments by calling me BOSS.

Er, Bront, I think that was addressed to me. El Jefe means "The Boss", or "The Chief" in Spanish.

 

[Bront]

Er, Bront, I think that was addressed to me. El Jefe means "The Boss", or "The Chief" in Spanish.

Doh!

Sorry, looked like he hit my points in the responce, didn't know.

I thought it was a play on some middle eastern name or something like that.

Anyway, realy no big deal. I've said what I'll say, and that's it at this point. I think KO summed everything up nicely as well.

 

[Erekose13]

As a judge I've been trying to think how best to respond to this. I think as the newest judge it'd be best if I just put things from my perspective.

- Proposals: I submitted several proposals as a player. All have made it in eventually. As a DM I don't think I had time to send any in. As a judge I've submitted what? three and none have made it in yet. As a player I tried to do my part discussing new proposals, debating those I thought were balanced and flavourful until they were just right. Nothing has changed now that I am a judge, except that once a proposal looks like it has seen its cycle of debate amongst the community, I vote on it.

- Promotion: I have been playing on LEW since somewhere close to the begining. I saw a number of adventurers waiting in the RDI and stepped up to the plate. I think this was around when you started, DerHauptman. Content with the amount of work it was taking to run one game, I left it at that. Most recently it looked like there were a number of adventures up and coming and the judges were getting a bit bogged down. I stepped up to the plate and offered to help. Yup I just out of the blue volunteered. Since then I have done what I can to get proposals pushed through as I too am a big proponent of more choice.

The people who are judges are judges by virtue of a desire to help the community and put in some time. We do not have any hidden agenda, we are not out for world domination, and we are not here to stiffle the voice of the our players.

 

[DerHauptman]

I have said everything I want to say. I really have an issue with one judge in particular and it is his response that is like all the others he posted with regards to any question about judges, policy or perceptions.

So that perhaps spurred my questions and perhaps looking back some could be taken as accusatory but not personally so only in so far as the system is involved.

Also you all seem be on the same sheet of music in being defensive for some reason, (someone said my posts were insulting) I think in my posts I was clear about saying in all cases that things could be perceived as such and or that it might appear or in my opinion it seems. I did not personalty accuse anyone of any impropriety. (except for the little rant about Bront - but hey his look at me, look at me, I'm a judge, I have proved I am impartial and care about the community act gets old)

When someone critiques my work, questions the way make policy or run my unit it is not personal its professional. They are not attacking me only the system or policy and perhaps to some extent my judgment but its my professional judgment not personal.

I don't get defensive because when one puts up the shields any avenue to communication at all is blocked. We tend to stop listening when the shields come up. Also, I might actually learn something if I listen instead of try and formulate a defense.

This is a community you are its leaders you get the big chairs at the table (a metaphor I know you have no table) so you get the questions and the heat. Its what leadership is about. Perhaps I expected too thick of a skin since I deal in a different type environment than most I put things bluntly I think and call them as I see them. I can be and am wrong and I accept that perhaps my opinion of the judges in general is tainted by the actions of one. Again its actions though not the person.

As a group, saying nope, you are wrong, nope not true, we don't do X we are impartial always we even kill each other in games - see. I don't get it.

To me that is being a little too dismissive of a few facts of human nature. We are all human and as much as we might try or insist even, that we are absolutely neutral in all dealings with our coworkers Friends, customers and as DM's our players and as judges each other and the general membership we are not. I am guilty of it at work, in my games with my kids even, and in all of my dealings with people.

I deal with people at work every day and have a fairly senior position in the military. When I get things for approval I am more critical of some than others. I know from dealing with certain subordinate unit commanders they will do as I direct the right way almost every time and others (usually newer ones) will need more scrutiny.

I will scan my inbox for the reports from experienced operators and teams first so I can get them out of the way and spend more time on the ones I know will need it. I also, will admit that when a peer that I know and respect sends me something for comment or review I will tend to be less critical than on someone I don't know because I know that once I endorse the idea, mission or plan my reputation is on the line. Same when I disburse funds or assets and especially my soldiers. I give some people the benefit of a doubt and others not. Because some I know and deal with regularly and others not. That is what I am talking about here.

If you took it any other way think about the old adage I think you protest too much.

You all as judges have a lot of e-mail conversations and know who's work will be good and who tries to push the limits etc. I bet even some of you are friendly with some others. I bet you (even if you don't think it) consider some posters a little more clear in their rules fu than others and will look at their suggestions accordingly. Its just basic human nature. To deny it is to deny yourself. I do it , you do it, our mom and dads do it, the birds and bees do it etc.

Again, you have all put work into the community and I said I respect and appreciate it. Its not some passive aggressive cop out I mean it. Yet I can mean it and still have concerns and opinions.

This community is fun if a little limited in inclusion I am thoroughly enjoying myself.

Finally, I question stuff I care about because it makes us all think. Through that we can make change and generally, change is good. I can't stand we've always done it that way or it's just the way we do it here as answers.

If I have not made my point and I don't think I have at least I've made you think about some things a couple of you agreed with including players into some of the decision making that is heartening to me.

Again I proposed all that before and there was one of you that was most vocal about excluding the players - totally turned me off in tone and concept to his being a judge.

That is a personal and not so personal issue IMO cause I think the other judges should know the perception it generates.

I'm good after this. I can see by the tone its goind no where thanks for listening and responding.

 

[Knight Otu]

I have said everything I want to say. I really have an issue with one judge in particular and it is his response that is like all the others he posted with regards to any question about judges, policy or perceptions.

So that perhaps spurred my questions and perhaps looking back some could be taken as accusatory but not personally so only in so far as the system is involved.

Also you all seem be on the same sheet of music in being defensive for some reason, (someone said my posts were insulting) I think in my posts I was clear about saying in all cases that things could be perceived as such and or that it might appear or in my opinion it seems. I did not personalty accuse anyone of any impropriety. (except for the little rant about Bront - but hey his look at me, look at me, I'm a judge, I have proved I am impartial and care about the community act gets old)

There is a line I could say that I'm sure you would find just as insulting and accusatory, and I could make the same defense about it just being "things that could be perceived as such." It isn't fit for Enworld, however. If you have an issue with a judge, don't dance around with "it could be perceived that way" or "I don't mean any offense" - instead, email me. If it is me you have a problem with, email the admins or moderators.

When someone critiques my work, questions the way make policy or run my unit it is not personal its professional. They are not attacking me only the system or policy and perhaps to some extent my judgment but its my professional judgment not personal.

You're not critiquing our work, though, you say that what we do cannot possibly work, and it appears that you say that because you don't seem to understand how it works. You think there is some kind of secret agenda we are working on, when all we do is try to keep things going smoothly. You claim the players here have not enough power, when they have some of the greatest freedoms of all - they can walk away if they don't like us. And they can found their own Living settings if they like, and the real world equivalent of that is a freedom that is hard to find. You say that the judges could somehow think of themselves of a group that can control all aspects of gaming, when all we are is the guys who try to keep this game together.

I don't get defensive because when one puts up the shields any avenue to communication at all is blocked. We tend to stop listening when the shields come up. Also, I might actually learn something if I listen instead of try and formulate a defense.

If I told you that, in order to shoot an enemy more effectively, you have to aim in a totally different direction, would you listen?

This is a community you are its leaders you get the big chairs at the table (a metaphor I know you have no table) so you get the questions and the heat. Its what leadership is about. Perhaps I expected too thick of a skin since I deal in a different type environment than most I put things bluntly I think and call them as I see them. I can be and am wrong and I accept that perhaps my opinion of the judges in general is tainted by the actions of one. Again its actions though not the person.

Of course we get the questions and the heat. We know that. We experienced that (You might want to ask Nimisgod about that one player one time). We know we're not infallible. We know we might make wrong decisions. We had to deal with the fallout from our decisions, whether they were wrong, right or neutral. Have you seen Ciaran in Living Enworld recently?

As a group, saying nope, you are wrong, nope not true, we don't do X we are impartial always we even kill each other in games - see. I don't get it.

You have made accusations. We proved these accusations are wrong. That's the only reason those things came up.

To me that is being a little too dismissive of a few facts of human nature. We are all human and as much as we might try or insist even, that we are absolutely neutral in all dealings with our coworkers Friends, customers and as DM's our players and as judges each other and the general membership we are not. I am guilty of it at work, in my games with my kids even, and in all of my dealings with people.

That stops us from trying to be as impartial as humanly possible? We never denied that we are humans, but we aim to be as impartial as possible.

I deal with people at work every day and have a fairly senior position in the military. When I get things for approval I am more critical of some than others. I know from dealing with certain subordinate unit commanders they will do as I direct the right way almost every time and others (usually newer ones) will need more scrutiny.

I will scan my inbox for the reports from experienced operators and teams first so I can get them out of the way and spend more time on the ones I know will need it. I also, will admit that when a peer that I know and respect sends me something for comment or review I will tend to be less critical than on someone I don't know because I know that once I endorse the idea, mission or plan my reputation is on the line. Same when I disburse funds or assets and especially my soldiers. I give some people the benefit of a doubt and others not. Because some I know and deal with regularly and others not. That is what I am talking about here.

That is just common sense, however. Of course we can't just play lottery to give some random person power. We can't give someone a big weapon just because he says "Trust me." Impartiality does not mean being blind to reality. At some point, experience takes precedence over impartiality. But that doesn't mean impartiality is dead.

If I have not made my point and I don't think I have at least I've made you think about some things a couple of you agreed with including players into some of the decision making that is heartening to me.

Again I proposed all that before and there was one of you that was most vocal about excluding the players - totally turned me off in tone and concept to his being a judge.

The thing here is - the players have always had a say in the decisions, more than you seem to realize. And no judge has ever advocated excluding the players as far as I've seen. Unfortunately, the thread you refer to has been lost to the crash, so I cannot check it. But the gist is - the players aren't involved in the final voting process. That is unlikely to change in this Living game. But the players can comment on any proposal, and any proposal that is disliked by the players is unlikely to be approved by the judges. And again, the players have a very good way to assure that the judges stay honest - they can go away, leaving the judges alone in this game, essentially destroying it. Living Enworld is simply too inconsequential for the things you fear to happen.

 

[B4cchus]

A quick question between the ongoing "discussion": Does my character (Talbin) need judge approval after his last (aborted) adventure even though he didn't level? If so, i take it an e-mail to the character judges would be in place.

 

[Rystil Arden]

A quick question between the ongoing "discussion": Does my character (Talbin) need judge approval after his last (aborted) adventure even though he didn't level? If so, i take it an e-mail to the character judges would be in place.

If you didn't level, then you're good to keep going

 

[Knight Otu]

If you didn't level, then you're good to keep going

What Rystil said.

 

[B4cchus]

OK!
Thanks and thanks!