Players Council Meeting Info
Again Thanks to all the people who attended the meeting. I will try and give a breif summary of events at the meeting here so you dont have to wade through the massive log which I will put up on my site for those that wish to read it.
I started the event by talking about the council and listen to peoples comments and trying to give a bit more feedback on how it will work.
The Reason for the Council is
The reason for this is I feel often FC dont really understand the root of the problems for the players, or perhaps more importantly dont see the solution which often we the players see. The current problems of the storyline is just one aspect.
Is the council replacing CZ,Dai,Cosmik.
No the council does not replace or do there jobs in fact I hope the council will work together with them. But the council is about making FC more accoutable to us the players.
We then had a few questions about how the council will work etc.
Ok the coucil will be about 12 players each player will focus on an aspect of AO, be it the storyline, communications, test server, Rping etc etc. They will cover the boards but also listen to the players like this is meeting and then hopefull once a month meet with the people in FC whos job it relates to. The idea is to get some real answers from them
So people wondered who was on the council and how people got on there. Well people are selected based on what they doing in AO and for the community. It was would be nice to have people voted in as suggested, but this is not going to be possible to do for now at least. We have seletced a number of people for the council already but we are still looking for more.
Also as stated at this current time the council is not focusing on the proffesions as I feel these require a lot of work and understanding to cope with. We need to start the council working on the smaller areas first before trying to cover proffesion issues.
I don't support this council
Frankly,
Who are you, another player, not paid by Funcom, choosing whether my voice is heard by the products maker or not? You have no vested interest in this product other than your own entertainment time. That in itself means that only issues you find "worthy" will be heard.
Who elects this council? If this council is a representative of the 'Player community' it better get a vote from every dang player in Anarchy Online.
While I agree it would be wonderful to see more roleplaying events and see more intereaction from Funcom with its players, its up to them to provide it. My voice as a consumer of Funcom's product should be JUST as important as anyone elses, on the council or not.
Frankly, what Funcom needs to do is come up with a better way to 'poll' the player population. And that means they shouldn't force the player to come to the boards to have a voice. An in game poll is possible for organizations, why not for the player base as a whole.
If you want this unelected council to do something, have them suggest topics to be polled by Funcom. Otherwise, don't think to speak for me on any issue.
I point back to previous posts you've made Kirrana, where you've outlined your troubles with Funcom and people have responded behind you giving you enough of a voice that people listened and came to the meeting. Why change this? You did a great job then. Stick to it.
It's my money that's spent every month, and that money says that my voice is just as important as yours. Don't try to take that away from me, or frankly I'll find another game to play where the Development company will appreciate every one of its consumers.
I also do not support the council
I just re-read the log of the meeting and my feelings are even stronger now.
This "council" that can not even be elected on should not have it's voice heard any more loud and clear than anyone else who pays a monthly fee to Funcom.
I thought the idea of getting players together to discuss issues that they felt were important was good. But I disagree with this council.
I would like to also point out my impressions of the meeting. From where I sit I knew few people at the meeting. I live in the Pacific time zone and know you Kirrana only from here on the boards. Most of the people at that meeting I did not know. There are a good number of player events that happen in the times that I am online and I saw only one or two of the people from these events represented at this meeting.
It appeared to me that the people who called this meeting and who walked into it already in favor of this council were not very receptive to the possibility that not everyone saw their solution to be a good one. Taking that into consideration I wonder how this council proposes to serve the good of the player population if it is already seeming to ignore opinions that are different from their own.
I agree that it would be helpful for both players AND Funcom to consider the opinions of the paying customer about things such as the ongoing storyline. However should Funcom decide that it's easier to listen to this "council" I will have serious issue with that since I do believe that everyone's voice should be heard. It is Funcom's job to keep their players. We pay them, remember?
I do not pay you, a "council" that is not even a representation of my gaming peers. That this council was basically already formed at the time of the meeting this weekend in Baboons seriously gives it very little credibility to me.
Should this "Council" post as if they are one voice of the people I will make sure to remind Funcom that it is not in fact a unanimous opinion of the player popluation. And should Funcom ignore me blatantly I will put my money where my mouth is and find another way to spend my entertainment dollar.
It's really that simple. If you don't like it - you can always cancel. That is where the power of the player is. It's in our pocketbooks. Not in a self appointed council.
Here's why it's different.
It's different for this very reason:
Kirrana wants this one group to be sanctioned by Funcom. She wants it to have an official voice with meetings and what have you. Tell me, do any of the other SIG's have this formality with Funcom? Do you think they should? Do you think for instance that the Fixers alone should have Funcom's ear, to present the "player's concerns".
I'm not against her idea to get a better flow of information back and forth with Funcom. I'm against her choosing who is a part of my representation. If it's going to represent me, should I not at least have a say in who this is representing me?
Nor do I think any of my ideas should take precedence over anyone else. This is my point. Rather than have some arbitrary committee put in place over us, I think Funcom needs to find a better way in not only deciminating the information to all its subscribers, but also receiving feedback in return.
It's called customer service. It should be what you've paid for and if it isn't, than there is a problem.
By the way Kirrana, to basically call my disagreeing with you moaning, you're completely misunderstanding me. I have a problem with you coming between my (the customer's) feedback with Funcom (the developer whom I subscribe to). Any other issues I have with Funcom or Anarchy I won't bring into this thread because this thread is about your council, SIG, whatever you want to call it.
It's not about semantics, it's about allowing a 'sanctioned' group have the only 'heard' say. Tell me, if you had a group of players, supposedly endorsed by all players and we had monthly meetings, why would you ever bother to troll the boards again looking for feedback? It's all packaged nicely for you. THAT is my problem with that. WHO decides what's worth reporting back and what isn't. It better be a person with a vested interest in seeing Anarchy Online as a whole succeed and that means making the players happy. Not just one PORTION of the player base, but all portions. If they don't succeed in relaying our concerns than we will start canceling, if we start canceling than the game goes under, if the game goes under, said customer service person above no longer has a job. It's called accountability.
Tell me, if Kirrana and these other mysterious people decides who's on this council, who are they accountable too?
Last point. If you post something on these boards in a public fashion expecting us all to just go along with what you've said and we don't, do NOT call it a witch hunt. I've disagreed with you in very civil terms, I have not tried to get a hold of you personally in game or out. Therefore, I'm not arguing against YOU Kiranna, I'm arguing against your idea. Get your facts straight and stop trying to make this sound like it's a personal attack upon you. Keep the drama in game, not out.
**** edited for legibility and to put this little remark that it was edited****
Re: Here's why it's different.
Quote:
Originally posted by Cruel
It's different for this very reason:
Kirrana wants this one group to be sanctioned by Funcom. She wants it to have an official voice with meetings and what have you. Tell me, do any of the other SIG's have this formality with Funcom? Do you think they should? Do you think for instance that the Fixers alone should have Funcom's ear, to present the "player's concerns".
Please let me know how sanctioning one group is exclusive? Yes, I read your bit about lazy FC representatives and find that argument flawed - refer to Tekkor vs agent forum example below.
Kirrana wants to have it recognized by FC, not to be the unilateral decision maker. Sure, she'd prefer that we not split into 500 groups because of petty bickering. That's understandable. If you really have something against what she's representing, then by all means create your own council. With enough people behind it, you can be the second party. Even with that, that's bound to be better than 10,000 voices saying almost the same thing (we might be able to get 4 non-guild SIGs out of this).
As for other SIGs with this type of formality, just take a look at http://www.agentsector.com/ In the past, Tekkor (the site's admin) has conversed with Cosmik several times on behalf of the agents on Rubi-Ka. Granted, none of us "voted" him in. He took the initiative on his own volition and got some response. And for that, most agents are greatful.
Remember that Cosmik and Cz do not have the time to respond to EVERY single message and since a lot of requests by the AO community are repeats, it helps a lot to summarize it down and provide a focal point for their responses. (Note that because they don't respond doesn't mean they don't read or register it - Please make that logical distinction - it IS important).
Now, if I were to say, disagree with one of Tekkor's suggestions to Cosmik concerning an agent issue, by all means I can voice that opinion. These boards are still being read and there was by no means a media-blackout with Tekkor being the sole mouth and ears of Funcom when it came to agents.
As for your comment about "Fixers alone should have Funcom's ear, to present the "player's concerns", please don't portray Cz and Cosmik as being that stupid as not to be able to determine for themselves which suggestsions are applicable towards each group?
They're more intelligent than you give them credit for.
And finally, regarding choosing your representation, the only way you can get absolute representation is if you create your own council: Cruel's Council.
Understand that "representation" as you term it is useless if the people you vote in don't represent you. Look at real-world politics for that flaw in action.
What really matters is that the people in power hold the same view as you. That's all that matters.
If they don't, then go straight to the top. Since the 'council' isn't the highest level, nor even official (sanction possibly, but not official : see Tekkor's Agent Sector before attempting rebuttal), all you really need to do is post here.
My hope is, that the 'council' will be attentive to the concerns expressed here (from players like you) and relay that on to Cz and Cosmik. What does it matter what the structure of everything is as long as you reserve the right of rebuttal, which you expressily do as long as this board is active.
As for Kirrana's council not being 'voted in', anyone who's worked in a team environment knows the importance of balacing personalities. Voting has a strong propensity to produce meaningless bickering. Again though, if you think this is some secret organization out for nefarious needs, then start a counter council.
I'm sorry if I'm coming across of slightly overbearing on this issue. I feel strongly that this could be useful if implemented properly. But right now, all I see are people who are focusing more on the issue of so-called "non-representation" and forgoing the deeper concern that we need better communication with FC (aside from just giving it lip-service).
And to boot, it's seemingly personal despite reassurances to the contrary. If I'm a poor judge of character and am totally mistaken about it being personal, then please, prove me wrong and start a watch-dog group or counter-party. I would welcome that just as much as the original council idea. I think there'd be at least three interested members :)
I would really hate to be right about the last few posts being all posturing. Please prove me wrong.
Tap
What I like to call a constructive disagreement.
I see the supporters and I could have named them before I read this thread. Some of the few remaining original Baboon's crew. This isn't about supporting a friend who wants to help. It's about stopping a poor solution to your 'problems'.
I have never felt the need to appear in these forums, but this council talk has called me out. I don't care how good intentioned Kirrana and her council might be it's simply a bad idea. Giving power to the few is always foolish in this type of setting. If you wish to encourage player feedback reaching FC then get more people to post here and to send in those lovely feedback forms they have on the support page.
IF any of you can honestly say that 12 or even 50 people could express the wishes of the thousands of players of AO then I am truly sorry. It doesn't matter who is on this council it can not work. And in no way should any self-appointed representatives of the people have any more voice then any single individual.
FC has all along said that players will not effect their overall storyline. We've all seen Lorekeep and his band try everything they could to be special and have more influence with FC. Having impact in this game is not about FC, it's about the players. You want to have effects do things in-character in-game that get to the people, the players. FC made the game and they are giving us some events to take part in too. But if you want more go and do it. Stop looking to FC for acknoledgement and look where it matters to the people. If people attend and enjoy your player run events, then they were a success. So to all those whining about wanting FC to sanction their organization's events. Stop begging for scaps from FC's table and get out there and deal with the people. If you all have your hearts set on impressing FC then go and apply for a job with them of start a fan club. As far as playing the game it's the players that matter. I hear you all say it to FC, why don't you listen to it?
About real game mechanics issues or changes you wish to see. Get people together and write an e-mail petition on an issue (not use the /petition command) with as many player voices as you can. Then send FC that petition, or get many people to send their own e-mails. Also threads here are great for feeling out issues. If you think it's an issue start a thread and see if the people agree. Don't think that FC doesn't read these threads, they do. If you want to influence FC do it through the will of the people, not through special status. The last thing we need is an elitist pack running around with that kind of power. That was not a shot at Kirrana or any who attended her meeting. Anyone given that type of power is bound to become elitist in time.
There you have it ,Kirrana, not just shooting down your council, but giving other options.