| Brood Brother |
 |
 |
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
|
From my perspective:-
1) ?As a "2 year old newbie", I have no idea how the original rules review process was intended to work, but it was certainly not clear (at least to me, and I presume the majority of web-dwellers), nor was it regular. I would like to have rules reviews on a regular basis, between 3-6 monthly intervals, with the dates being published in advance.
Also, the FAQ process is a major contributor to the rules review, but seems to have got out of hand in the past. As part of the review, the FAQs need to be considered as pointers for aspects that need revision, and where possible, the rules should be updated for clarity, and the relevant FAQs removed.
Having said that, I would really like to thank Greg Lane, Dave McLeod and Neal Hunt for the work they did as the old ERC members, together with the Army Champions and other moderators who were and are still a vital part of E:A as we know it today. Winging and politics aside, these guys have contributed greatly and put up with a lot of "newbies" like me asking the same questions time-and-again against an impossible background with respect to GW and SG, and I both respect and admire their tenacity - without them E:A would have disappeared long ago IMHO!! Where possible, we need to retain and foster such veterans, and I sincerely hope that they will continue to be a mainstay of the hobby, and to contribute significantly to any future developments.
2) ?I really like what Markonz and Neal have done to-date, and the way that they are going about it. From this approach, it would seem that we should end up with - The "current" rules
Under version control, these are the ?latest "published" version in general use.
- The Revision list
The list of rules or sections that have significant changes being made to them, usually because of some significant game-play issue. These will have a status modelled along the lines proposed by Neal and Hena.
- Proposed / Experimental Rule-set
Published infrequently, this is the "Current" rule set amended to contain the 'mature' proposed revisions. In effect it is a "draft" form of the next version for general comment and approval - much like Markonz has done now.
- The FAQ list
A single list of questions and answers relating to the "Current" rule-set, where the FAQ link is in the "Current" rule-set. This will also be the location of "minor" amendments to rules etc which are corrections (typos etc) or clarifications to existing rules.
- The Army lists
Of Course! There should be a 'Champion', at least one backup, and places to hold their developments. These should be held centrally like the rules, FAQ revisions etc, and have a status modelled along the lines presented by Neal and Hena.
- The Approval Process
The various stages that Army list, major and minor rule revisions undergo, together with a published calendar of relevant events in the process.
3) ?I agree with E&C here that there ought to be links in the Wiki pages, TacComms and SG sites to the central repository. For preference, I would like that to be SG, otherwise I am ambivalent - except there should only be a single repository (with appropriate data and system security etc).
4) ?In addition, to the site contents (above), I think it would be really helpful to have:-- The committee
The list of people with their current responsibilities, together with the way they are appointed and removed.
- Relationships
A statement on the position with respect to GW SG and other interested parties, together with any authorisation requirements and rights etc.
- Tournament notes and addenda
Notes and additional rules that govern the way tournaments are run. These are a suggestion rather than a binding set of rules, and should be no more than one page long, possibly containing some minor changes or addenda to the "Current" rule-set which have not been formally approved.
I realise that much of the above may reflect what is already available, but I think it would greatly assist if we were to take this opportunity to make improvements where needed while retaining the many good aspects or principles - and to publish this as a blueprint for the future.
------------------
OK, so I type slowly and Neal got in ahead of me about the review process  . I still stand by the need for a callendar held somehwere to let the rest of us "Web-dwellers" know the status of the rules and army lists. And I also think it prudent to have regular reviews / updates no more than 6 months apart in order to report on the current status, revise army champions, provide minor rule clarifications etc.
_________________
"Play up and play the game"
Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt
|
|
) - offset by 6 months. New army races can jump on one cycle or the other based on when the respective champions feel they are ready to finalize.
