Restructuring FAF / Council of Setons

0

Also Mod Developer so useless:
Balthazar and I, are properly two most active modders who partipicate in FAF discord discussions in terms of helping people (Balth more than I, actually alot more than I). AND have a major mod pack. Oh and Marlo’s and his Mod pack.

And if you added a badge for SCTA and anytbing about SCTA elected I will give that guy the bird in every way I can. (And it be one of the reasons I’d nervous on giving SCTA as a featured mod).

And dividing Creative between Mods and Mappers? While mapping has generally an outsized influence in Creative. Biass has done a good job in making Modding a much more part of Creatives stewardship

3

The Councilor could be in general charge of the area (eg promotions) then he could subdivide into badges however he felt like (eg social media, project-promotion, news) and appoint people to the roles. A new councilor might come in and replace people in the badges, or might just remove the existance of the badge altogether.

8

This idea is so cripplingly terrible it's actually kind of amazing. Councilors can already subdivide responsibilities as they desire. This would create so many tiny independent fiefdoms that prevent any sort of meaningful collaboration or progress that the project might just collapse.

Can you imagine a world where their are 3 different moderation leaders each with different policies and rules? It would be insane.

1

@swkoll Yeah this either ends up in the exact same situation we have where say ftx for example has a bunch of badges and nothing is different or a bunch of people have the main badges and it’s chaos.

5

This seems a bit complicated, I skimmed the thread but my first thoughts were that it overcomplicates current system, and someone has to maintain that system as well. Micromanaging over a dozen of badges to various people might not feel like much, but I'm fairly certain those would almost from the get go be outdated and thus lose their value.

4

My main concern is that these 'badges' start to sound a lot like 'work'. Exactly as @nine2 describes, but then even having people 'work' for you. We're not a company - this is a community where the majority of us choose to spent our free time. There are only a few people that vowed to spent time and those are in the council. Everyone who decides to help a council member, or make content, does that because they feel like it. But as soon as you give that person a badge saying he / she is some manager then it becomes a responsibility. Read up about 'Hafta vs Wanna', see also: http://talks.ui-patterns.com/experts/jesse-schell. Alas: someone got the badge on a wimp, didn't realize the full impact, motivation drops, interests drops, things slow down.

I feel this resembles closely what @swkoll and @ftxcommando are saying: having to go to multiple people, all semi-motivated or unmotivated and maybe even unexperienced, then having to wait for those people causing something that could've been done in a day suddenly to take weeks. I can only see the community being (severely) damaged if this idea is applied.

Going back to the original post: you proposed this system for lack of transparency. With all due respect about transparency, why is it that relevant in a small community like this that things are completely transparent? As far as I can see, people get things done in a respectable manner - that is what matters most. Trading that for transparency sounds like a bad deal.

1

I think the only reasonable thing would be to make every badge votable (once a a year maximum because elections are tiring) IF it is contested.

@FtXCommando
Yes, i think by now that it doesnt'make sense to have this system and then still have councillors, too. That would just be combining the disavantages of both systems. Half of the point is to free us from having to deal with councillor election discussions, and instead have badge election discussions.
That would be better because a badge discussion can just focus on that single responsibility that comes with that badge. For example it would allow you to spend more time discussing one thing than wasting your time with every topic under the sun in the election thread.

@Jip
Why do people have to go to multiple people, all semi-motivated? My system does not force responsibilities to be split up onto multiple people. We can have just as few people as we have now, but we clearly see the list of responsibilities assigned to each person. And we can discuss each one seperately.

@Dragun101 and @Swkoll
Same question, let me repeat myself:
A person can hold more than one badge

Bias could still do both. Thats like my first point in the explanation of the system.

For me the most convincing arguments against this idea and for the existing councillor system are:

  • Like @Giebmasse mentioned, the councillor system is so basic and simple that it can be kept working entirely without tool support or any other technical prerequisite.
  • Transparency may not be the goal. I would like it to be a goal, but maybe its really not that important. And in that case of course we should not spend time on this idea.

@Swkoll
Its seems like you have no trust at all that anything good would come from a seriously democratic system that just has the potential for the community to elect people that work against each other instead of with each other.

Is the reasoning here that the average voter is too stupid/unknowledgable to notice that a certain badge assignment is not likely work out well? That is interesting, and i wonder if you think that the PC position should stay an elected position in the current system?

Anyway, thanks everybody for responding to this idea with serious feedback.

At the end of the day, the proposed system is maybe an option for when the day comes that we have so many people willing to contribute that having a more finegrained system than now makes a ton of sense. But right now is probably not the time for it.

3

I don't want to sound pessimistic, but additionally to me this just looks like a lot of work and overcomplicating things (maaaybe there is a middleground). Instead of the annual elections of each badge and related energy spent on those, in addition to the managing of them and other created "overhead", I'd rather see the available resources (which are already constrained) be spent on actual work instead of trying to fulfill the ideals of this proposed system.

I'm just trying to be realistic and this seems a lot like micromanaging stuff for a negative net gain in the overall scheme of things.

0

Voting on all would enable votes on:

Tournament Organizer
Tournament PR
FAF Admin
Game Balancing
Moderation

as per your list. Voting on these ranges from not being sensible to being a really horrible idea.

Anyway, you already said that right now the system is not worth the additional overhead.
Maybe we can still salvage some of the transparency ideas:
We already have an organization chart here: https://wiki.faforever.com/images/5/52/FAF_Organigramme.png
(Maybe there is an updated one, that one was the only one I could find on the wiki)
We could have an additional one that describes what each councillor position does. So kinda what badges are tied to the position. Maybe we can even integrate it in the forums in way that you get to see it when you click on the council of setons badge that already exists on the forum.
This way everybody gets to see what each councillor is working on. Or should be working on, so it would increase the accountability of the councillors and not be like it is now that most of the people forget what a councillor pledged to do when he got appointed.
Each new councillor could update the chart as his first councillor action if he wants to shift the focus of the position.

This way we have minimal organizational overhead and still more transparency.

0

Related to above, please checkout the #roles channel in discord.