GrimDarkBits wrote:
I have to echo some other concerns here. I've been worried about lack of player involvement for a while too, but I don't like the look of this at all.
Just take one issue for example, the Baneblade issue.
In the IG forum there is a very long thread where issues with the Baneblade were discussed extensively, many ideas were proposed, a ton of mathhammer was done to evaluate them, and a possible change was settled on (two shots on the main cannon) based on some sound logic and compromise. Some play testing was even done. The thread died down recently, due in large part to an almost total lack of feedback from the AC.
Now, I see that proposed change on there as one option. I also see a lot of very radical proposed changes to the Baneblade that make no sense or were eventually rejected in the Baneblade thread for good reason. Some of the suggestions would dramatically alter the role of the vehicle.
And worse, some of those suggestions I have never seen before. Where the heck did they come from? Are they the pet idea of one person on this new committee? How knowledgeable or invested are the committee members in this specific problem? How much math have they done to evaluate any of these proposals? How much personal play testing? How much discussion was there on this problem?
What happens if the committee votes and a wacky idea wins out over 12+ pages of discussion and debate and math and play testing by the community? Now we have to publicly re-litigate why their idea is crap? Or do we have no choice but to play test something we already agreed wasn't good?
We have a process in place for dealing with these things. It's slow and messy but it can work when the forum is active. The two main impediments are lack of player interest and inactive or unresponsive ACs. Solving the latter would help with the former. We need more ACs who don't ignore the problem. We need ACs who set clear goals, guide debate, encourage play testing, and give feedback on where we are in the process. I realize this burns people out. Maybe it's time for fresh blood in some cases.
Instead it looks like we're going to get some strange idea forced on us by a small secretive group. Maybe not on this issue, but eventually on some issue. The arbitrary or absentee AC can be debated, or can be replaced if we raise a stink or they get tired. But now we'll have a secret cabal voting on more lists than they can possibly intimately keep up with, and who we cannot communicate with or challenge.
I am not saying everything needs to be in the open or everything needs to be put to a public vote. I am saying if you are going to get a new committee together, the first thing the committee should do is vote on what is really an issue. Look to see where things are bogged down or stuck. Once you decide that, then you should kick the ass of whichever AC is ignoring the problem to try to jump-start the normal way of doing things.
If you think Baneblades or Stompas or whatever need changes and you want to increase community involvement, don't crap on the work we've been trying to do for months. Empower the people who care enough to get involved on a topic and make sure it doesn't die before something useful comes of it.
I think Ginger and Mordoten have covered most of this but I'd just like to comment on ACs. For sure ACs are instrumental in driving lists forward and currently we have several absentee ACs but where are the players to replace them or badgering the current ACs?
Look at the last 3 roles opened
SM AC - 2 volunteers (1 with zero posts)
Tau AC - 2 volunteers
NetERC chairman - nobody
If people want to revitalise the current system then volunteer for roles or ask to replace people. Don't just whinge when sonebody tries something different