Post by Nikola Pasic on Aug 28, 2015 15:58:22 GMT
The reason why i'm opening this thread is to get everyone's opinion on this. Hopefuly by now it is completely clear to everyone that we simply have to have written rules of roleplaying. Without a doubt there are some basic rules that are applied in every roleplay(like metagaming), and they don't require any voting. However when it comes to rules unique for this type of roleplay, which are being set up, there might be a problem.
The first problem is a question who should vote, all the members or simply the leaders? The second question is how should decisions be made, aka when a proposition that is voted on becomes a rule?
I'll try to present my opinion on this matter, and i'd like everyone else to do the same.
Faction leaders are "responsible" for their faction, which means that how well a faction is organised depends heavily on it's leader. And that naturaly usualy is a decisive impact on how well will the faction do in the roleplay. That's why i'd say that they must be the ones who get to vote on making something a rule. Will he consult the faction members(which is kinda expected) and how will he decide to vote is upto him. I'm stating this based on an assumption that factions should be able to get to a unique stand and that the faction leaders won't be the only ones who will make a decision without consulting the other faction members. After all, they aren't the only ones roleplaying their faction. If they start voting against their own players they're also damaging themselves, because i'm sure nobody wants to not be able to have a say. On the other hand, everyone should be able to make a compromise.
Also, it's much easier to merge the interests of a group into one and present them like that, like an opinion of the entire faction.
When it comes to the question when does something become a rule, i'd say that it becomes a rule when all faction leaders agree on it, and vote "yes" on it. In other words, it would be like the security council of the UN where every faction leader has a right to veto(forbid) a decision. So a single "no" vote would mean that the suggestion can't become a rule in it's current form, and that the leaders should make a compromise. Atough it might ask for more time to create a rule that way, at least it would be acceptable to everyone without some being forced to accept it. In theory there is a chance that sometimes decisions will be blocked for some time, but that will happen only if faction leaders aren't capable to make a compromise. And then, all of them suffer, which is much better because otherwisein majority voting one side would win and the other would lose. That is an easier situation, true, but it's also unfair. Everyone has to recognize that other people have interests too.
I'll use an example. We have this thread, where leaders are voting on making something a rule. Clearly in this situation there is no majority, we have two votes for each of the three options. But what if a situation was diferent? What if one option had three votes, the other had one, and the third had two? That way the majority voting will mean that three factions get what they want, while three don't.
Now, let's imagine that there were two options on this poll, one of which was the seven day limit and the other was the three days limit. Let's say all factions voted, and only one vote is for a seven day limit while five are for the three days limit. If the majority got to decide, the rule would clearly say three days. But think about the faction that wanted seven days, why did they want it? Maybe their members are too busy in real life, or they simply aren't able to post that fast for whatever reasons. Do you think it would be fair to make three days a rule for replying? Imagine if you were in such a situation. What would you like the others to do to help you?
In this example, i personaly would make it seven days. I mean, jsut because most can do it in three doesn't mean we can't wait for seven days for the one who can't. We can still answer on eachother's posts within three days, but it wouldn't hurt to wait for those who can't for seven days.
But okay, not everyone thinks like i do. In that case, i think the least ting they can do is make a compromise and at least try to help the other one that much, by increasing the number of days from three to, let's say five. So it's in between the two, and the one who can't do it within three days has a bigger chance.
This is how i think everything should be decided. Simply put, if the majority has the power to decide the miniority will constantly be in a disadvantage. If we make everyone have to make a compromise for every rule, they'll have to do it eventualy.
What do you people think?
The first problem is a question who should vote, all the members or simply the leaders? The second question is how should decisions be made, aka when a proposition that is voted on becomes a rule?
I'll try to present my opinion on this matter, and i'd like everyone else to do the same.
Faction leaders are "responsible" for their faction, which means that how well a faction is organised depends heavily on it's leader. And that naturaly usualy is a decisive impact on how well will the faction do in the roleplay. That's why i'd say that they must be the ones who get to vote on making something a rule. Will he consult the faction members(which is kinda expected) and how will he decide to vote is upto him. I'm stating this based on an assumption that factions should be able to get to a unique stand and that the faction leaders won't be the only ones who will make a decision without consulting the other faction members. After all, they aren't the only ones roleplaying their faction. If they start voting against their own players they're also damaging themselves, because i'm sure nobody wants to not be able to have a say. On the other hand, everyone should be able to make a compromise.
Also, it's much easier to merge the interests of a group into one and present them like that, like an opinion of the entire faction.
When it comes to the question when does something become a rule, i'd say that it becomes a rule when all faction leaders agree on it, and vote "yes" on it. In other words, it would be like the security council of the UN where every faction leader has a right to veto(forbid) a decision. So a single "no" vote would mean that the suggestion can't become a rule in it's current form, and that the leaders should make a compromise. Atough it might ask for more time to create a rule that way, at least it would be acceptable to everyone without some being forced to accept it. In theory there is a chance that sometimes decisions will be blocked for some time, but that will happen only if faction leaders aren't capable to make a compromise. And then, all of them suffer, which is much better because otherwisein majority voting one side would win and the other would lose. That is an easier situation, true, but it's also unfair. Everyone has to recognize that other people have interests too.
I'll use an example. We have this thread, where leaders are voting on making something a rule. Clearly in this situation there is no majority, we have two votes for each of the three options. But what if a situation was diferent? What if one option had three votes, the other had one, and the third had two? That way the majority voting will mean that three factions get what they want, while three don't.
Now, let's imagine that there were two options on this poll, one of which was the seven day limit and the other was the three days limit. Let's say all factions voted, and only one vote is for a seven day limit while five are for the three days limit. If the majority got to decide, the rule would clearly say three days. But think about the faction that wanted seven days, why did they want it? Maybe their members are too busy in real life, or they simply aren't able to post that fast for whatever reasons. Do you think it would be fair to make three days a rule for replying? Imagine if you were in such a situation. What would you like the others to do to help you?
In this example, i personaly would make it seven days. I mean, jsut because most can do it in three doesn't mean we can't wait for seven days for the one who can't. We can still answer on eachother's posts within three days, but it wouldn't hurt to wait for those who can't for seven days.
But okay, not everyone thinks like i do. In that case, i think the least ting they can do is make a compromise and at least try to help the other one that much, by increasing the number of days from three to, let's say five. So it's in between the two, and the one who can't do it within three days has a bigger chance.
This is how i think everything should be decided. Simply put, if the majority has the power to decide the miniority will constantly be in a disadvantage. If we make everyone have to make a compromise for every rule, they'll have to do it eventualy.
What do you people think?
