Digital Paint Discussion Board
Paintball 2: The Game => Paintball 2 Discussion => Topic started by: Y2J on February 12, 2008, 03:58:17 PM
-
I posted this on another topic that was a rant about something because jitspoe posed the question in it (to come up with ideas for the committee, solutions, etc), and I figure a lot of people are tired of reading those topics and won't see what I came up with, so here it is, in it's own topic:
My opinion on a committee solution: Get a list together of people who would want to serve on a committee, have it be an application process, and you (jitspoe) pick 10 individuals, who can see different sides of arguments, are well spoken, and most importantly willing to help. Then when an issue came about, five people would be randomly chosen from the 10 to decide the case, you don't have the entire committee voting. Anyone can present arguments for either way, but only 5 vote. And also, when an issue comes about, and say it involved me. It would be unfair to have people on the committee who have expressed a hatred for me, or who would love to see me out of the community, so like jury selection, I could veto 2 committee members from participating. But on the twist side, the committee (or you, or someone..) could veto 2 committee members from participating because of their alliance with me. That would potentially leave 6 people out of a 5 needed still, and I think would be a lot fairer than the current system.
Obviously I was brief with it, and it's missing stuff, but it's just a general idea to make the committee somewhat better. And I know I gave you the power to choose the committee members in the application essentially, which I guess you don't want to do, but at this point, it is your game, it's up to you in my opinion. If you want a bunch of stifflers out for heads in the committee, so be it. If you wanted a fair/balanced committee, I think you would be able to get that too, and I think you would agree the only way to do that seems to be by people being placed, and not popular vote. Because right now a popular vote would either lead to a bunch of stifflers, or a bunch of people that don't care.
-
1
-
The only thing I find wrong with that is that a lot of the community is looking for expediency in decisions. Doing the process like that has the potential of lengthening the decision making process.
-
The current method has already proven to take longer than people want, and has led to many not popular results. At least this way there is a fair hearing in the person's view, because he can eliminate really biased committee individuals, and if you get people to apply that are willing to do this and put in the time they should, there should be a week limit once the problem is brought to the committee's attention. Upon that week, any member who has been inactive without excuse, axe them.
Edit: On top of the 10 committeee members you get a "judge" per say, someone who knows the rules, knows how the committee is going to function, what has to be done, and once Jitspoe sends that individual a case, he has 3 days from receiving that mail (lets not make it the day jitspoe sends it, we all have busy days, etc) to get the case presented, contact the person accused and get their story and get any vetos, then goto the committee and present their case, and then give the committee one week for discussion, then hold a vote.
This would be 1 week, 3 days for a decision, from the time Jitspoe informs the Judge. If the person accused is not accessible during those 3 days, they will be banned for the set ammount. If it is a new case, with no precedent, then the ban will be indefinite until that individual gets in contact with the committee.
-
I agree with you dom. It would be very similar to the jury selection process. There's millions of Americans, but only a select amount would serve on a single jury (ones without alliances/opposition to the person being prosecuted). Good idea, Y2J.
-
In principle its a great idea, thats why such a process is used in the real world. In this game, such a process would cause more problems than it would fix.
-
nice of you to come back 3 weeks later.
-
How would this cause more problems lekky? You don't substantiate what you say with any bit of detail.
-
Yeah sorry, mainly because of the time constraint. If anything is to be changed, it should definitely reduce the decision making time, not lengthen it.
The fact is also that prejudices aren't a factor anyway. Its blatantly clear in the Committee area if someone is showing prejudice as each person must give an explanation of their verdict. Its highly unlikely that 10 people hold the same bias so this will get called out on.
The length of the process should be the main area we need to focus on to "improve" the committee.
-
The only thing I find wrong with that is that a lot of the community is looking for expediency in decisions. Doing the process like that has the potential of lengthening the decision making process.
Will it really matter? It was 2 months before I got banned.
-
I don't think bias is a major issue here. If anything, the committee members try too hard to be objective. I don't think any (or many) committee members have anything against KiLo, for example, yet they felt a perm ban was necessary for distributing cheats and voted for the max ban time. Even if just 5 people voted, it wouldn't have changed the outcome.
-
Then what are the major issues? I know time is an issue. If you had people that were actually committed, and less of them working on a given case, it would expedite the process.
And whether you want to believe it or not, bias is an issue. After each decission someone on the committee sounds off about how the ban was the right thing, how this person was ruining the community, etc, etc. While the individual complains about bias, and has a point, because really, the committee should give their decision, their reasoning, and leave it at that. They should not be agitating the person more or constantly bickering in a given topic. The way it is set up now, there is no way for the individual accused to make it a some what level playing field in their eyes. Sure from your prespective things look great, but take a look at treating everyone fairly. You give them the option to eliminate some individuals who could be biased from a given vote, it will eliminate any talk of bias.
Plus, another problem with the current committee, is a lot of people felt it was a popularity contest based on many different things. I feel if you get a standard community members have to be, and have an application/essay about why they want to serve, what their views on the current rules are, and on other decissions, etc. You would see who REALLY wants to be on the committee, you would be able to see if they are capable of thinking on their own or just repeating what few speak of, and you would hopefully get different minded people (but not guarenteed obviously, because who knows who actually wants to be apart of it).
-
and have an application/essay about why they want to serve, what their views on the current rules are, and on other decisions, etc. You would see who REALLY wants to be on the committee,
So what he is saying is the more you say and show u care the more you should be on the committee. :-[
I have one question. If this is such a good idea what was it not thought of before and suggested until after several forum bans.....etc....later. Transparent.
As far as showing your stance.....you all know where I stand. If you don't.... no matter the venue or forum.....
No Grieving.
No Cheating.
No Spoofing.
No Aliases.
Am I missing something? That does not take an essay or a 5 year old to understand.
Committee fix? Try fixing the community first.
The committee has done a fine job. The problem is the code is open sourced and griefing is acceptable behavior.
Try convincing others to stop this rather than point at people who are trying to help.
-
Well said (for the most part).
Agreed on the community fix. Disgree'd on the no-aliases policy. Certainly not in more formalish places like the forum or IRC (to some extent), but there's nothing wrong with using in-game aliases.
I reeeeeally think that committee threads need to be put in a locked public sub-forum after discussion has been completed. Any private information (IPs, etc) could be pretty easily removed. It's pointless to say that community member X is biased if we don't know their opinion or reasoning or anything.
-
heh i talk to madman alot, i still talk to him alot. and yeah he knows i voted for 1024 days but we seem to get along still lol
i dont know kilo to well but i have nothing against him.
darkness has been cheating before and since those logs.. i know ive seen many many screenshots. i still dont really care about him. dont get me wrong though. i dont want him in any chatroom with me.
oh and lets not forget i busted bdog cheating and turned him in last week. my own friend in real life since we were kids, yeah i dont think im very bias.
-
Interesting idea, I think it could be worth an attempt at least - though I do agree it may lengthen the time spent waiting for resolutions (what with the initial call for a discussion/vote, then notification of the accused, then reply of the veto's, then the actual vote - which takes long enough as it is, etc...).
This really just gives more legitimacy to the committee's authority, as a hand-vetted select group by Jitspoe has none of the popularity contest criticisms attached that we have now. What I personally think really needs addressing is what Jitspoe himself and Eiii have just touched on - transparency. At the moment we are left feeling frustrated with some of the decisions made by the committee because they are not forthcoming with a reasoned and complete explaination of any of their decisions.
for example: KiLo's recent banning. The debate about the perm nature of his ban is only fuelled by incomplete information and guesswork about the committee's reasoning, which is very frustrating. Are we to assume that they consider uploading a zip to zillaclan the same as searching for exploits, investigating them, writing a distributable hack for it, then releasing it? As far as comparison in ban length goes, that would be a reasonable assumption, yet it doesn't exactly seem fair to me. Furthermore, "If anything, the committee members try too hard to be objective." (Jitspoe, 2008) suggests that such votes are not well-reasoned, but skewed by a desire to appear firm and objective - leading to a bias towards harsher punishment when it isn't necessary.
So, I reeeeeally think that committee threads need to be put in a locked public sub-forum after discussion has been completed. Any private information (IPs, etc) could be pretty easily removed. It's pointless to say that community member X is biased if we don't know their opinion or reasoning or anything.
pretty much hits the nail on head - what are peoples thoughts on this? I think it would provide an adequate level of transparency to the committee debates and in lieu of a proper 'press release' explaining how decisions were come to, I think it's all you can do to stem the frustration felt towards committee decisions of late.
- Doc
-
I like Y2J's idea of jitspoe picking the committee members -- not because I think they're biased or anything, but because Y2J's right -- it's jits' game. I also like his idea of not requiring all 10 people to vote in order to expedite the decision time; however, I think it should be more of a process like this:
1. Issue comes up and is posted on the Committee Board for vote.
2. A standard time of 4 or 5 days (or whatever number -- it should be greater than 3 because people have lives, but obviously not higher than like 10) from the time it's posted for committee discussion is open for discussion and voting by all of the committee members.
3. At the end of the standard preset period (i.e., 4 days) the votes are tallied. Not all committee members are required to vote, but there must be a minimum of 5 votes in order to act on what the committee decides. If there's a tie (like if 6 people vote, or all 10) or if less than 5 people vote, jitspoe makes the final decision.
I really think the only problem right now is the discrepancy in the time it takes for the committee to make a decision. If you clearly set out that there will be a set number of days from the time it's presented to the committee, I think it'll really help move things along in the long run, but I think the only way for this to occur is if you reduce the number of required committee members voting. I know on a couple of cases the reason for the delay was that not all of the committee members had voted, and I think Y2J's idea of not requiring all 10 would be a real help.
As for the vetoing of who gets to vote in your case... I dunno. I haven't really seen much/any bias from the committee members so far, but maybe give jits the power to make a decision contrary to the committee if he feels it's necessary -- such as if the 5 people that vote on an issue don't like the accused or if the 5 people that vote are buddies with the accused. Just my 2 cents.
-
I personally think i would be a good committee member :D
-
So, I reeeeeally think that committee threads need to be put in a locked public sub-forum after discussion has been completed. Any private information (IPs, etc) could be pretty easily removed. It's pointless to say that community member X is biased if we don't know their opinion or reasoning or anything.
pretty much hits the nail on head - what are peoples thoughts on this?
- Doc
I've been saying this since the very beginning :)
-
Furthermore, "If anything, the committee members try too hard to be objective." (Jitspoe, 2008) suggests that such votes are not well-reasoned, but skewed by a desire to appear firm and objective - leading to a bias towards harsher punishment when it isn't necessary.
- Doc
Well this links back to my point about other committee members calling people out on biased decisions. Everyone posts why they made their decision, and if its clear they are being biased it will be called out upon and the bias removed. Likewise if its obvious that someone is going out of their way to show unbias, this will be called out too.
One example of this is when a case arose regarding one of the members of a clan that one of the committee members was also a member of. They actually voted for a harsher ban than was necessary, however this was called out upon and the bias (extreme non-bias?) removed from the discussion.
So,
Quote
I reeeeeally think that committee threads need to be put in a locked public sub-forum after discussion has been completed. Any private information (IPs, etc) could be pretty easily removed. It's pointless to say that community member X is biased if we don't know their opinion or reasoning or anything.
pretty much hits the nail on head - what are peoples thoughts on this?
- Doc
I've been saying this since the very beginning :)
The only problem I have with is the nature of the people in this forum and who play the game. Whats very likely to happen is that committee members will be hounded for voicing their opinion publically, which in turn will lead committee members to be more reserved and not actually show what they truly think about the case. Right now committee members are protected from the abuse, and thus are free to not worry about showing what they actually think. Jitspoe, and 9 other members are there to ensure that people think logically and do not let bias and other things get in the way.
Making it open just adds another problem.
-
Jitspoe put up with the 'abuse' for years, I can't imagine anyone on the committee being weak enough that they'll vote differently just to spare themselves criticism, it seems silly to never be held accountable for your votes/actions.
-
Jitspoe put up with the 'abuse' for years, I can't imagine anyone on the committee being weak enough that they'll vote differently just to spare themselves criticism, it seems silly to never be held accountable for your votes/actions.
People are held accountable for their decisions, thats why each vote should have a reasoning behind it. If the Committee was made up of 10 copies of the same person then I could totally understand the point, however it isn't! I'm sure you know that people will be more reserved with what they typeand the decisions they make y00tz, of course they will, this will probably lead to inaccurate decisions.
Jitspoe put up with the 'abuse' for years, I can't imagine anyone on the committee being weak enough that they'll vote differently just to spare themselves criticism.
You have seen the abuse recently right? This will make it worse. Apart from the fact you are basically saying it doesn't matter!
(I'm not just totally disregarding this btw, just trying to point out some potential problems)
-
Making it open just adds another problem.
People are already getting accused of being bias in decisions, other people feels decisions aren't being made properly. The community voted these people in. Should their be a reelection, election coming up, the people are entitled to see the way people are voting, their reasoning, and determining for themselves whether or not the person is a capable committee member. There should be no public election if the people can not see how their representatives are acting.
Making the forum viewable to all would not create more problems, as the committee should be capable enough of voicing a logical and intelligent decision, that can be viewed by the public. We need to know we voted for the right people. Making it open can solidify our votes, or give us knowledge for the future.
-
People are held accountable for their decisions within the secret committee pages, but as a non-involved party (i.e. not on the committee and yet not against it) I've been generally supportive of your decisions since I helped elect you guys to do the dirty work (i.e. decide bans), but take a look around, there's a lot of angry people who aren't in my position where they are unbiased against the committee, I think it would give the committee a little more legitimacy if we saw what you guys voted on, how you guys voted, who's voting when etc.
If a lot of people appear unhappy with the committee, it makes sense to me to try something new, change a little, see what happens. Running the same course and expecting different results from the community seems a bit silly.
Obviously I respect you Lekky, or I wouldn't have voted for you for the committee, I respect all of the committee members (I'm sure WarWulf is laughing right now) but you guys need to take a step back and see it from the outside... This mysterious discussion goes on, bans are handed out, all the while I learn about these in IRC well before hand... I just think I shouldn't have to say "Oh really, the committee is going to start banning for multiple accounts soon?" well in advance, before it is announced on the forums.
The committee, by the way, is doing a fantastic job, and thanks so much guys for making the decisions that require your time and thought, all the while freeing up Jitspoe for a period of what appears to be record development time for all the new features added.
-y00tz
-
I just think I shouldn't have to say "Oh really, the committee is going to start banning for multiple accounts soon?" well in advance, before it is announced on the forums.
That was a mistake, but it was also the first decision made and the committee (we) have learnt from that.
A lot of people are happy with the Committee too, the general response from the previous big argument thingy was that of general support! A perfect Committee that never made mistakes would be awesome, but its very hard to reach that, and I just think we would be switching one set of problems for an entirely different but equal set of problems.
Thats why I think subtle changes such as trying to improve speed, setting a decision framework, etc would be more productive.
-
You need to keep something in mind. The committee isn't a full-time paid position. This whole talk of a judge/jury system with delegating people, having the defendant select people he does or doesn't want voting, etc. just doesn't feasible. Frankly, it's hard enough just to get enough committee members to vote to resolve an issue. Hell, I've practically been dealing with the crap in the community full-time recently since I've been unemployed -- haven't even had time to work on the game itself much -- and I still have a hard time keeping up. I think you expect too much if you think anybody can keep up with an elaborate system like that for an extended period of time, let alone 5-10 reasonably unbiased, intelligent, mature, and willing individuals from the community.
As for having some kind of public display of the committee issues, I really don't think that's a good idea. Not only would it be even more time consuming to try to filter out private data, but the recent leak of committee discussions has proved to be nothing but headaches. Yes, I'm sure you would all like to know exactly what goes on, but in the grand scheme of things, it just gives people one more (or up to 10 more) thing to make a stink about. Instead of being able to openly express their honest opinions about an issue, committee members will be subjected to the scrutiny of every person in the community. Some may see that as a good thing, but it most likely means they will have excessive peer pressure, remain more closed, or be constantly badgered by those who disagree (inevitably, there will always be people who disagree). Also, if everything is out in the open, individuals outside of the committee will be less likely to share information because they don't want their friends, clan mates, etc. to know.
As far as improvements go to the committee, I think the biggest thing would be to just have them more actively communicating with the people involved in each case. Sometimes it's just not possible to get in touch with somebody. Other times the committee members don't have enough time. The other thing that would help would be some kind of more automated system. Trying to keep up with everything just using standard forum software isn't easy. Polls and discussion is about all we have. Some kind of system with a set timeframe for discussions and voting would be nice, but even then, not all cases are the same. Sometimes they're pretty straightforward and can be resolved in a day. Other times even a couple weeks isn't enough. Some cases don't have enough evidence to be resolved at all.
Another problem is me. I hate banning people. It's a pain. I've got to check the logs for ip's and hard ware ID's, check to make sure they won't impact more than one user, post a thread explaining the ban, add a ban to the global ban list, etc. It gets old. So when I'm going through the 5 pages of unread posts on the forum and see an issue that has enough votes to resolve, I usually think, "Ugh, I'll do it later."
-
I can tell you who does not quaulify..
Anyone caught cheating.
Anyone not willing to help others.
Anyone cuaght grief, spoofing or not showing a general willingness to new players.
-
wtf is it with you and spoofing?
-
Google it...its not just me...
-
It is true that implementing the fix is a lot to ask from a position with little material incentive for doing so, but it was my understanding that one of the (possibly tacit) prerequisites for nomination for the committee was the desire to put as much effort into it as required. Of course I understand its just a game and other responsibilities are practically always going to trump it in the priority stakes, but I believe there ARE people in the community who have/are willing to spend the time necessary. Afterall, we have pretty diligent moderators and lots of dedicated tertiary sites which surely takes more effort than weighing up a couple of grey-area cases a week.
I really don't agree about transparency being a bad thing. I have to concede that there are elements in the community who probably would pounce on committee members' comments, etc... but exposure to the community is a necessity for fairness and objectivity in my opinion. The committee members should have strong enough principles and reasoning faculties to take their decisions seriously and be careful not to be influenced by peer pressure. If they are incapable of this, they aren't committee material in my eyes. For instance, look at the level of scrutiny political leader's operations come under in the UK/US. Nothing they do can possibly escape exposure to the public, and so they must stay strong to their principles - any laws and decisions are completely public knowledge all the time from conception to passing in parliament, and often come under fire from various pressure groups.
Also, if decisions are being made about people in this community from clandestine sources and secret testimonies to the committee, then that sounds like a breeding ground for bias and corruption. Even if the decisions are fair, how would we know? Its kept secret from us. It's only reasonable to mistrust the committee if this is the case. Warwulf shopped his mate to the powers that be; the grey area between people willing to do this, and people not willing to do it - ie those who want to secretly stab their friend in the back then lie to their face about it, I'd like to think is very small.
The point about communication surprises me, I thought this was the case anyway. This definately needs to be a priority if the committee is going to improve in any way.
It has occurred to me that a great deal of the work the committee does, and the problems which have arisen, would benefit greatly from a much more comprehensive constitution being drawn up. A detailed and thorough guideline on offenses, circumstances and punishments, which is fair, community reviewed and open to feedback and regular revision. This way we could reduce the number of cases which the committee needs active debate over (as this is obviously a weakness of the current system). Greater considerations and granularity in ascertaining the fair punishment for each case should be much easier to come to.
Just to clarify, I don't have anything against the committee, I'd like to distance myself from the people who constantly post 'Da Comity Iz Krupt' threads. I think we need a rational reorganisation of how the committee works and how decisions are made. This is a relatively small community, so we can afford a more personal touch, simply suggesting things like 'on Steam you'd just be banned forever' just isn't justice on this scale in my opinion.
- Doc
-
It is true that implementing the fix is a lot to ask from a position with little material incentive for doing so, but it was my understanding that one of the (possibly tacit) prerequisites for nomination for the committee was the desire to put as much effort into it as required. Of course I understand its just a game and other responsibilities are practically always going to trump it in the priority stakes, but I believe there ARE people in the community who have/are willing to spend the time necessary. Afterall, we have pretty diligent moderators and lots of dedicated tertiary sites which surely takes more effort than weighing up a couple of grey-area cases a week.
I really don't agree about transparency being a bad thing. I have to concede that there are elements in the community who probably would pounce on committee members' comments, etc... but exposure to the community is a necessity for fairness and objectivity in my opinion. The committee members should have strong enough principles and reasoning faculties to take their decisions seriously and be careful not to be influenced by peer pressure. If they are incapable of this, they aren't committee material in my eyes. For instance, look at the level of scrutiny political leader's operations come under in the UK/US. Nothing they do can possibly escape exposure to the public, and so they must stay strong to their principles - any laws and decisions are completely public knowledge all the time from conception to passing in parliament, and often come under fire from various pressure groups.
I think in a perfect world this should be the case, global transparency of issues and decisions should be available. If our prime minister did evrything behind closed doors I think we'd be a little pissed off no? However, I dont like how you simply talk about strong principles and reasoning faculties as being the only issue with not making the committee more transparent. The actual issue has little to do with the Committee members abilty to reason, and more with the communities abilty to hassle people non-stop. Also I don't think peoples decisions will be influenced as such by peer pressure, more there will be a lack decisions made.
I should also point out that the Committee is made up of people who generally do play the game, which i assume they do for fun? I don't think that Committee members should have to put up with the masses of abuse such a transparent system will bring with it. Also don't try and use real life politics as an example, this is very different, for instance what the Committee actually does, and the lack of power (barely any) it has in comparison.
The fact that there are 10 members in the Committee all from different areas of the game, and the world, should mean that they can balance each other out and come to a balanced and fair decision. When the decision comes to the publics attention, the public can put forward their arguments/issues and the Committee can try to answer them and give reasoning to explain the decision, which I for one have tried to do in the past (not that it helped, people just don't listen).
Also, if decisions are being made about people in this community from clandestine sources and secret testimonies to the committee, then that sounds like a breeding ground for bias and corruption. Even if the decisions are fair, how would we know? Its kept secret from us. It's only reasonable to mistrust the committee if this is the case. Warwulf shopped his mate to the powers that be; the grey area between people willing to do this, and people not willing to do it - ie those who want to secretly stab their friend in the back then lie to their face about it, I'd like to think is very small.
You'd be surprised mon amis, think about who you're classifying as friends, not every clan knows each other in real life. Thus this will also stop people being brought to justice! Would you let jitspoe know about a hacker in your clan if you know the thread will be open to the public? I very much doubt that, even is names were changed it will be blatantly obvious who did what. Then not only will the Committee have to deal with the shi.t, but also the innocent party trying to make this game fairer. Think he will get into another clan anytime soon?
The point about communication surprises me, I thought this was the case anyway. This definately needs to be a priority if the committee is going to improve in any way.
Jitspoe said that sometimes it is hard to contact people, through email or irc or whatever means, sometiems it just takes time, so i'm not sure what you're being so surprised about...
It has occurred to me that a great deal of the work the committee does, and the problems which have arisen, would benefit greatly from a much more comprehensive constitution being drawn up. A detailed and thorough guideline on offenses, circumstances and punishments, which is fair, community reviewed and open to feedback and regular revision. This way we could reduce the number of cases which the committee needs active debate over (as this is obviously a weakness of the current system). Greater considerations and granularity in ascertaining the fair punishment for each case should be much easier to come to.
Yeah I actually brought this up a while ago, if we had some sort of framework with which to approach new cases things should move along much more quickly. Like a step-by-step process of exactly what needs to be done for each case. I think the rules should definately be overhauled, and perhaps remove specific hard-coded bans in place of guidline bans?
Just to clarify, I don't have anything against the committee, I'd like to distance myself from the people who constantly post 'Da Comity Iz Krupt' threads. I think we need a rational reorganisation of how the committee works and how decisions are made. This is a relatively small community, so we can afford a more personal touch, simply suggesting things like 'on Steam you'd just be banned forever' just isn't justice on this scale in my opinion.
- Doc
The fact that its such a small community is one of the probems of opening up the committee forum. It will be all too easy for people to become isolated and attacked, which could lead to one of 2 things, no one wanting to be in the committee, or people being in the committee then leaving the game due to sheer amount of abuse for spending their personal unpaid time helping out. <-- This is lost on almost everyone, thinking that because someone is in the Committee, they are fair game for abuse.
-
Im gonna write a book...
"You know you waste too much of your time posting on the DP Forums when..."
-FlaMe
I'm going to write a short story... "User banned for this post." - jitspoe
-
The problem seems to be about abuse, simple answer is don't tolerate it. 8 day bans for anyone who abuses any committee member.
Personally i don't think that many people are going to be bothered about what is said behind closed doors, so open it up and see how it goes. You can always close it again if things get out of hand. At the end of the day we entrusted the committee with this responsibility, now i think we deserve that trust back.
-
Lekky, you switch between idealist to realist many times in your reply - you can't criticise me for discussing the principles and reasoning then go on to talk about '10 people from around the world with balanced views'. Its just not realistic. Some of your points are valid, but none I haven't considered already.
Of course I understand what is meant when you say people are less likely to dob in their clan-mates, but how often would that happen anyway? the distinction I made was between those like warwulf who give his friend up, publicly, and those who do it secretly (probably very few). Those who have the sensibility of Warwulf would do it anyway, whether their name was printed or not, and those who wouldn't arent' likely to be giving their clan mates up anyway.
Not being harsh, but you make out like the committee is so vulnerable and victimised - how was that not readily apparent when you applied? Which brings me back to my point in the last post - if you think you cant put up with the abuse, or cant hold an objective opinion under pressure, then quit. Let someone who can do it. Yes, no-one is paid for it, but no-one pays knack or y00tz to patrol the forums reading endless posts by people asking what the best airtime is, and yet they spend their time doing it anyway.
Im surprised about the communication problem because its probably THE key to making this work. The fact that even jitspoe identifies it as a problem speaks volumes.
Please don't act like the current system is well conceived, because it very plainly is not. It has a lot of potential, but it needs to be addressed in a number of areas:
= Communication
- as you say, this takes time and is by no means guaranteed. Can we devise a more robust and speedy way of communicating disputes?
= Legislation
- a point we agreed on. We need a comprehensive constitution of rules and regulations, with punishments and circumstances as appropriate. We've already had cases where punishments have been mitigated in light of extenuating circumstances, so to be fair we need a proper rulebook.
= Transparency
- Definately a prerequisite to a more radical and in my opinion necessary overhaul to the way the committee works. I acknowledge the increased pressure on committee members if their decisions are scrutinised, but if they are trustworthy and well reasoned, they have nothing to fear. The only decisions which will come under fire are ones which are easily proven to be illogical (and so probably unfair). Conducting business behind closed doors only breeds frustration, misunderstanding and distrust.
- Transparency also mitigates problems with 'leaks'.
I understand what you're trying to say, but there are far too many examples of a transparent well defined and organised system such as the one proposed working well in the world - look at open source programming. When you write and release code into a CVS or whatever, its undoubtably going to come under scrutiny and your ability, etc... is going to be considered by all who read/use it. It might be more pressure on you, and embarrassing when you make silly mistakes, but this only makes the ultimate program better.
- Doc
-
You need to keep something in mind. The committee isn't a full-time paid position. This whole talk of a judge/jury system with delegating people, having the defendant select people he does or doesn't want voting, etc. just doesn't feasible. Frankly, it's hard enough just to get enough committee members to vote to resolve an issue. Hell, I've practically been dealing with the crap in the community full-time recently since I've been unemployed -- haven't even had time to work on the game itself much -- and I still have a hard time keeping up. I think you expect too much if you think anybody can keep up with an elaborate system like that for an extended period of time, let alone 5-10 reasonably unbiased, intelligent, mature, and willing individuals from the community.
As for having some kind of public display of the committee issues, I really don't think that's a good idea. Not only would it be even more time consuming to try to filter out private data, but the recent leak of committee discussions has proved to be nothing but headaches. Yes, I'm sure you would all like to know exactly what goes on, but in the grand scheme of things, it just gives people one more (or up to 10 more) thing to make a stink about. Instead of being able to openly express their honest opinions about an issue, committee members will be subjected to the scrutiny of every person in the community. Some may see that as a good thing, but it most likely means they will have excessive peer pressure, remain more closed, or be constantly badgered by those who disagree (inevitably, there will always be people who disagree). Also, if everything is out in the open, individuals outside of the committee will be less likely to share information because they don't want their friends, clan mates, etc. to know.
As far as improvements go to the committee, I think the biggest thing would be to just have them more actively communicating with the people involved in each case. Sometimes it's just not possible to get in touch with somebody. Other times the committee members don't have enough time. The other thing that would help would be some kind of more automated system. Trying to keep up with everything just using standard forum software isn't easy. Polls and discussion is about all we have. Some kind of system with a set timeframe for discussions and voting would be nice, but even then, not all cases are the same. Sometimes they're pretty straightforward and can be resolved in a day. Other times even a couple weeks isn't enough. Some cases don't have enough evidence to be resolved at all.
Another problem is me. I hate banning people. It's a pain. I've got to check the logs for ip's and hard ware ID's, check to make sure they won't impact more than one user, post a thread explaining the ban, add a ban to the global ban list, etc. It gets old. So when I'm going through the 5 pages of unread posts on the forum and see an issue that has enough votes to resolve, I usually think, "Ugh, I'll do it later."
You have just confirmed that you do not care about the fact that people vote in these people and don't get to see the work they are doing, thus what is the point of voting them in?
You have also confirmed that you fail to realize that the committee tends to "follow suit" instead of think on their own. Even I know this from few people, so I'm sure it's known to all, but no one seems to care because they just buddy buddy with them
And you call it an elaborate system, but it's really not. And any elaborateness it has, is easily learned and applied. Maybe for some of the 15 year olds that serve on the committee it is complicated, but isn't that a problem, that people that can't comprehend that, are serving on a committee making decisions?
And why should a committee member be afraid to have their opinion voiced in public, by opening up the forums for view? It's part of being in power and having responsibility, especially elected power and responsibility. If they can't handle it, tell them to get off and get people that will.
-
is there any proof of god?
do you have to see him work to beleve he is doing the right thing?
-
Lekky, you switch between idealist to realist many times in your reply - you can't criticise me for discussing the principles and reasoning then go on to talk about '10 people from around the world with balanced views'. Its just not realistic. Some of your points are valid, but none I haven't considered already.
I didn't say those 10 people had balanced views, I said that because there are 10 quite different people, that should go far in the way of producing a collective balanced decision (as balanced as can be).
Of course I understand what is meant when you say people are less likely to dob in their clan-mates, but how often would that happen anyway? the distinction I made was between those like warwulf who give his friend up, publicly, and those who do it secretly (probably very few). Those who have the sensibility of Warwulf would do it anyway, whether their name was printed or not, and those who wouldn't arent' likely to be giving their clan mates up anyway.
Its happened quite a few times, followed by a "please keep my name out of it". These people won't come forward if its open, even if name is hidden, leading to people "getting away" with things. Unless there is an option for people to explicitly say "keep this in the private area please" so that specific case can be excluded from the open view?
Not being harsh, but you make out like the committee is so vulnerable and victimised - how was that not readily apparent when you applied? Which brings me back to my point in the last post - if you think you cant put up with the abuse, or cant hold an objective opinion under pressure, then quit. Let someone who can do it. Yes, no-one is paid for it, but no-one pays knack or y00tz to patrol the forums reading endless posts by people asking what the best airtime is, and yet they spend their time doing it anyway.
Its not a question of putting up with the abuse, the committee has mainly dealt with bans (thats pretty much the original scope of the committees responsibility) which of course will upset some people, so yes some abuse and discontent is to be expected. The problem I have with some of the points being made is that this abuse factor doesn't seem relevant, its like kinda saying "yeah the committee will probably get more abuse, but thats what they are there for so screw them if they don't like it". Just because they CAN put up with it, doesn't mean its ok to keep increasing it (potentially).
Im surprised about the communication problem because its probably THE key to making this work. The fact that even jitspoe identifies it as a problem speaks volumes.
Yeah, its part of the speed problem, probably the main thing that slows down the process is trying to get information from people not part of the committee. I've mentioned things like this should be focused on, but people just seem to ignore it.
Please don't act like the current system is well conceived, because it very plainly is not. It has a lot of potential, but it needs to be addressed in a number of areas:
I'm not, i'm saying we should focus on improving it, rather than bringing in a totally new system that has a completely different set of problems, but a set of problems nonetheless.
= Communication
- as you say, this takes time and is by no means guaranteed. Can we devise a more robust and speedy way of communicating disputes?
= Legislation
- a point we agreed on. We need a comprehensive constitution of rules and regulations, with punishments and circumstances as appropriate. We've already had cases where punishments have been mitigated in light of extenuating circumstances, so to be fair we need a proper rulebook.
All the above is exactly what i've been trying to say, lets all work together to improve the system we have, not just bringing in a completely new one that will most likely need to be improved anyway!!
= Transparency
- Definately a prerequisite to a more radical and in my opinion necessary overhaul to the way the committee works. I acknowledge the increased pressure on committee members if their decisions are scrutinised, but if they are trustworthy and well reasoned, they have nothing to fear. The only decisions which will come under fire are ones which are easily proven to be illogical (and so probably unfair). Conducting business behind closed doors only breeds frustration, misunderstanding and distrust.
- Transparency also mitigates problems with 'leaks'.
I just think it brings a lot more problems than it solves, and potentially trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Well ok, does exist, i can see exactly where you are coming from and would probably be arguing with you to get it changed if it wasn't for the things i mentioned previously.
I understand what you're trying to say, but there are far too many examples of a transparent well defined and organised system such as the one proposed working well in the world - look at open source programming. When you write and release code into a CVS or whatever, its undoubtably going to come under scrutiny and your ability, etc... is going to be considered by all who read/use it. It might be more pressure on you, and embarrassing when you make silly mistakes, but this only makes the ultimate program better.
- Doc
Come on man, thats nothing like this whatsoever. This is about banning people, not getting your code reviewed before committing it (standard practice at my workplace btw). People generally don't get abused to the point they don't want to spend their helping anymore in the open source software community.
-
Reed: Most of the people who abuse the committee are already banned, so banning them doesn't really accomplish much, other than make them more upset. It also adds another grey area as to what constitutes as "abuse" as well as creates more work for me (having to add new bans for people who aren't in the committee). Then of course, there will be a huge uproar about how different people were "abused" by a committee member, why isn't the committee member banned, etc.
I'm curious why there have been so many references to the country's judicial and political system. Haven't people been complaining about corruption in that for years? I'm not sure if that's a good model to follow.
Dag: Compare open-sourced software to closed-source software. Which is better? Good open-sourced software seems to be the exception more than the rule, in my opinion. Also, ZGH and other cheats wouldn't exist if Paintball2 were closed-sourced. But that's probably not a good analogy anyway.
Y2J: Comprehension isn't the problem. It's the time necessary for the execution.
-
Yeah, I'm aware of the corruption that exists in the political arena's I've been likening it to, but the comparison I was drawing was the strong organisational and ideological bases of these systems. Im not saying all governments are corrupt, just as I'm not saying the committee is corrupt, but the former is well evolved to deal with these problems and I think we'd do well to take a leaf out of their book. Afterall, we are basically talking about a rudimentary legal system here, right?
I'll have to concede your point about ZGH, etc... Jits as you certainly know more about that than I. However, presumably that exploit is now patched? or is detectable, etc...? so ultimately, the system is better off now the exploit is exposed?
Now Lekky appears to have converted to an advocate for some change, can we discuss revamps to the way the committee works? Im not talking about a massive overhaul but some basic points have to be conceded by all parties:
- Communication is too slow and not very robust.
- Transparency promotes fairness, but has the potential to cause undue pressure on committee members.
- A constitution would help reduce the number of grey-area cases which the committee even needs bother with.
- The practicality of banning people is time consuming...leading us onto...
- The committee is not fit for the purpose of reducing the workload on Jitspoe so he can focus on development.
- A democratic election is too biased in this small community.
so, in the interest of pragmatism, how can we take it forward?
Is anyone willing to begin drafting a 'constitution' for reviewing by the committee? I'd volunteer but I'm really snowed under with Uni' work at the moment (plus it'd be kind of stepping on the committee's toes, I think).
Perhaps if we are afraid of a backlash to a transparent judicial process, Reeds suggestion of a trial run seems fair?
What is the consensus on Y2J's original concept of a revised election scheme? Its still early days for the committee so I don't think we need a cabinet reshuffle any time soon, plus we have no reason to think the existing members have been anything but sincere so far. However, presumably somewhere down the line there will need to be more elections and whatnot, so planning ahead can't hurt.
Presumably you've done all you can as far as automating the ban process goes, Jits, but I really have no clue how it works. Is there anything that can be done to expedite the admin on such things?
Any ideas about how to acheive better lines of communication? This is probably the trickiest.
Lets try and keep this moving forward, debates about politics are nice but I think we all just want to see the committee be as good as it can be.
- Dagless
edit: If only I wrote as much as this in my essays.
-
You have just confirmed that you do not care about the fact that people vote in these people and don't get to see the work they are doing, thus what is the point of voting them in?
You have also confirmed that you fail to realize that the committee tends to "follow suit" instead of think on their own. Even I know this from few people, so I'm sure it's known to all, but no one seems to care because they just buddy buddy with them
And you call it an elaborate system, but it's really not
. And any elaborateness it has, is easily learned and applied. Maybe for some of the 15 year olds that serve on the committee it is complicated, but isn't that a problem, that people that can't comprehend that, are serving on a committee making decisions?
And why should a committee member be afraid to have their opinion voiced in public, by opening up the forums for view? It's part of being in power and having responsibility, especially elected power and responsibility. If they can't handle it, tell them to get off and get people that will.
Rhetoric and conjecture, mixed with semi-logical complaints...
All i hear is complaints not a fix for everyone...
Think harder.
Nathan?
so banning them doesn't really accomplish much, other than make them more upset.
aka inserts does not give a intercourse here....= banned..
Really .....so punishment is only to make people more upset....so why punish?
This game will survive with or with out cheats.
Be more hardlined...and coded.
-
is there any proof of god?
do you have to see him work to beleve he is doing the right thing?
I know you were making an allusion to the actual subject of this thread, but I'm going to answer your questions literally. 1. No, 2. Yes -- I'll see you in 'Other Stuff' for the argument of your life, buddy! /me shakes his fist.
Edit: http://dplogin.com/forums/index.php?topic=12112.0
-
Herron ir con dios mi amigo para él es el camino correcto, pero soy su parte contra el diablo muahahahaha
Solo digo que, probablemente, porque su contra de las reglas de la religión. yo no se puede creer en dios, yo si no pertenecen a una religión
:)
-
hahaha, nevermind then!