Chiding... followed by hope?
Quote:
Originally posted by Merasandrin
Also disturbed by the attitude that is if you support this council you are working for RP in the game if you are against it you are not that already seems prevalent among its supporters - its for this reason people are so nervous. The council is the creation of a clique - if we chose not to try and be part of that council we are not part of the clique. Should Funcom recognise it as a key point of response (and why they would when they already have ARK's is beyond me) then they may be influenced to run events the way that particular clique wants.
I guess the above was somewhat aimed at me. In my humble opinion, everyone has a different take on what it means to roleplay: whether they believe it's running events, creating community sites, or just playing their characters amongst their circle of friends. All are more than valid, and who's to judge that any one of them is the proper way to roleplay.
So, how does this relate to why I jumped into the fray? First, there appears to be a misconception as to why I'm here; that is, the misconception that I equate support of this council or focus group directly to supporting roleplaying, and that those against it are not for roleplaying. I can certainly understand why you (Merasandrin and probably others) think so. But, to be frank, what I believe to be non-supportive of roleplaying is the judgmental and close-minded attitude that people have.
I for one don't know if this council will actually be beneficial for us. It holds some promise, as do a lot of ideas presented in this forum. But there's also the sliver of a chance that everyone's worst nightmare can come true if Funcom decides to only listen to Kirrana's cabal.
Who's going to be right: the proponents or the opposition? To me, it doesn't really matter. IMHO, the end-result means far less because we're intelligent creatures. As intelligent people, we can overcome any problems that might arise. What I am worried about is the recent community response we've been having towards roleplaying ideas.
So you might not agree with Kirrana's take on roleplaying or what needs to be done about it. That's fine. I don’t expect this to be a holding-hands sing-a-long reunion. In fact, Kirrana and I don’t see eye-to-eye on my issues about how to handle roleplaying. But there’s at least some form respect of each others intentions and ideas. If I don’t agree with how she’s handling something, I’ll give a suggestion (e.g. renaming from council to focus group). That’s what I expected to see on this forum.
But instead, we’re treated to the “what gives you the right!” messages. The “I think Kirrana is ...” posts. Perhaps I incorrectly hold the Roleplaying forum to a higher standard than the rest of the bulletin board. Even if this idea is not what you wanted, what does saying “this isn’t it. I want better communication from Funcom” any viable alternative? Of course we all want those goals. Stating it doesn’t make it so. The question at hand is how to achieve it and focusing directly on the how (and not who) is vitally important.
So how is this a close-minded attitude? It’s closed-minded because of the simple fact that it doesn’t even give the idea a chance. To me, giving an idea a chance is not just looking at it and saying it won’t work. It’s the process of going through it, identifying the weak parts, and then figuring out some way around those parts. Where is the “I don’t think this part will work... here’s an alternative” post? Only at the end, when you’ve exhausted all possible alternatives, do you declare a new idea dead. By that time though, it really isn’t a new idea is it?
As it currently is, we, as a community, have skipped right to the end. Never minding that we might be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
I guess, like many things in life, the onus is on those who come up with the ideas to prove that the quick-draw detractors were wrong. But is that a good community? No. That’s just an example of a closed-minded community that will never see beyond what’s in front of it. A community that’s ultimately doomed to it’s own stagnation and extinction because all the people with ideas, and those whom would have been willing to put effort into implementing it, will just leave.
And this is the reason why I have been vocal about this issue. Not just because I think Kirrana’s idea holds some promise. But because no one else, up to now, cares to offer anything other than the standard quick-fire “no no no” response.
Quote:
Originally posted by Merasandrin
How is it that Tekkor can earn the trust of the agent community to represent them... and yet we are not prepared to let Kirrana do the same for RP'rs. I think its simple 1)RP issues are far more complex than game mechanics 2) Tekkor being the point of contact for game mechanics for agents is unlikely to mean that he recieves personal in game benefit for it - but that seems to be precisely what those on the council would seek if not benefit for their characters involvement in story - recognition for their contribution to events over that of others
So I think the issue is Kirrana - if you want to do this - against opposition and don't want to become an ARK - which surely is the better way - find a way to convince the RP community that you deserve our trust - because otherwise I think you'll find people will continue to post here - in order to make sure that Funcom do not respond to a clique...
First off, thank you for actually being the first to critique my analogy. I agree, roleplay issues are more complex than game mechanics for a specific profession. However, that doesn’t necessarily mean that the same structure is not scalable (with some minor alterations of course).
The foremost alteration that comes to mind is that this council (or SIG) for roleplaying cannot say as confidently as Tekkor that it represents the entirety of its target group. In the end, it’ll be up to Cz and Cosmik to make the call as to how much they want to weight the voice of this SIG in relation to the other communication channels. This weight will likely involve some metric such as the number of supporters of this SIG, or perhaps with a finer granularity, the supporters behind a specific report. Of course, this isn’t that much different from Agent Sector with it’s own list of supporters in the form of their unofficial forum.
But personally, I find it hard to judge now whether I am or am not a supporter of the issues this SIG would propose in the future. I cannot fathom how some other people can already make that decision. :)
As for other alterations to the general structure, I’m drawing a blank right now. However, I’m more than open to any discussion on specific things that would be different between the Tekkor/Agent Sector structure and the proposed RP-SIG.
Your second point about personal benefit is a real concern that I share too. But I think I should break the term ‘benefit’ down more concisely as that single term could mean a great many things to different people.
Recognition
Personally, I don’t mind if other people experience recognition from their work in AO. After all, many others have had some form of event recognition whenever their articles are posted on the official news site. And I highly doubt FC would bother putting some ‘FC special stamp of approval’ on any event this SIG makes.
Materialistic Gains
Personally, I’d consider this a no-no. While I think it would be great if event coordinators could spawn non-combat items and such (wouldn’t everyone want a dinglehopper!), this should be left to the purview of GMs and ARKs.
Communication
I think this is the primary concern that most people have: that there’s a possibility that this SIG might have some secret lines of communication to Funcom. In honesty, Tekkor was able to individually converse with Cosmik directly regarding agent issues (instigated by Cosmik). And the reason we trust Tekkor is because he posts it publicly. Mind you, I believe in that instance, it was a call for agent concerns (so naturally he needs to ask the people on his forum). In any case, I personally believe it’s important that this SIG post any relevant communication that it has with Funcom; first, to encourage public trust; second, to encourage trust from FC that this SIG does talk to the people it says it represents. In the worst case scenario, where the SIG does all its Machiavellian machinations behind closed doors, Cosmik and Cz won’t give any credence to this group because they’re intelligent men and very well know that this group aren’t even close to representative. That’ll be a short-lived SIG and nothing to worry about right?
As for becoming an ARK, there’s a lot of responsibility behind it. A lot of which has nothing to do with roleplaying. To anyone else reading this, please do us all a favor and don’t go into the ARK program for the sole purpose of running events. The primary purpose of the program is help other players. Events are a perk that only comes after many, many hours of hard work helping others – which has a good chance of burning you out (which would explain why some ARKs get frazzled during events :) ).
Personally, I think there’s more than enough room for both. For instance I don’t think Kell Tashio would have had time to run RNN and be an ARK at the same time. Like wise for Tekkor and Agent Sector (sorry for not mentioning all the other people like Virral and such... long list... short of space :) ).
Merasandrin, I think your last point about establishing trust is vitally important. Now let’s see if anyone can propose solutions to this (other than the obvious and thinly veiled “I want to be a part of the council”) ;)
Tap
P.S. And sorry to disappoint the detractors out there: while I could possibly be a member of the Illuminati, I’m not part of this "uber-secret" council. Mine is a wholly independent viewpoint. Sorry to burst your bubble.
P.P.S. Kirrana, I do hope you’re eventually releasing the names of those on the group. See above for Trust issues. :)