Login |  Register |  FAQ
   
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 7 of 11
  [ 165 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next

Rules Review Blog
Ginger
 Post subject: Rules Review Blog
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 1:01 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
I am unsure what you mean by "pre-order", but suspect you mean that once we have got a publishable set, we take orders and then make a limited print run. Not necessarily a bad idea, but we need to get to the agreed set of rules first.

Which leaves us with the original options of
? ? 1) Sitting and waiting for SG / formal activity to finalise a revised set of rules (now very remote)
? ? 2) Revising the rules ourselves which SG store and possibly publish (if we can persuade then of course :) )
? ? 3) Revising the rules ourselves and then going down the Net:EA route to make them available.

===============

Option #1 is clearly not going to happen in the near (or distant) future, so if we are to sort the rules out ourselves, we need to agree the best approach. Essentially we need to consider the following for both the main rules and the individual Races / army lists:-
  • Questions are raised and FAQ used to clarify things. Eventually these FAQ need to be compiled into the next version of the rules or army list.
  • Broken parts need to be discussed and corrected, which are then added to the next version of the rules or army list
  • New mechanics or units need to be discussed and added to the next version of the rules or army list.
This was discussed recently, and IMHO trying to get community consensus on a rule-by-rule basis (using polls etc) is too cumbersome and certainly won't work for army lists, so we really need a replacement for the ERC to guide and put a final seal of approval on things. IIRC while we can have some form of forum election, there was a general consensus for Neal Hunt to pick 2-3 others to form the new ERC. ?

Essentially their role is to represent the wider community as a whole, guiding the development of the E:A rules and army lists, and approving and publishing new versions on a regular basis (1-2 years). They must maintain regular contact with the interested parties and different groups across the world, ensuring the final results meets the general approval of the vast majority of players on the forums in order to stand a reasonable chance of also satisfying the silent majority.
The ERC will appoint Army champions responsible for individual races, who will submit changes to the ERC for approval and publication.

I would also recommend the following considerations
  • To prevent bias, ideally Army champions should not be on the ERC
  • There should be a "Rules Champion" in charge of rules FAQ also ideally not on the ERC.
  • The ERC should report progress to the community on a regular basis (ideally 1-2 months)
  • The community should reserve the right to replace the ERC "president" using a 'Forum election', given a 75% vote of no confidence in the standing ERC.
  • The ERC 'constitution' and the general processes they use etc should be published on Epicoms and possibly SG (with agreement of course).
What do you think guys?

Also, if we adopt this approach, what timeframes are sensible here?

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Evil and Chaos
 Post subject: Rules Review Blog
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 1:10 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 2:57 am
Posts: 20887
Location: Harrogate, Yorkshire
Who should be put forwards for being on the ERC.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Ginger
 Post subject: Rules Review Blog
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 10:59 am 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
As to the membership of the ERC, I guess there are several approaches that could be adopted:-
? ? ?- The 'President' chooses a limited number of prominent E:A players
? ? ?- People put themselves forward to election and the top three join
? ? ?- the three or four major Global communities hold elections and present a representative.

There are probably other approaches as well, each with particular strengths and weaknesses. However, IMHO, we need to avoid overcomplicating things here and concentrate on ensuring the new ERC provides the right presence and results (community representation, generally accepted as trustworthy, etc). The point is; to create and maintain a credible set of rules and army lists, this group must be demonstrated to have the trust of the community as a whole, and preferably also the acceptance / trust of GW / SG as well. How this group is formed is perhaps secondary to how they operate and what is produced. If this community trust is evident, then their deliberations will have weight, and very possibly some slight influence on the various figure manufacturers etc. Heck, the manufactures may even confide in them and so get everyone moving forwards together (but perhaps that is just a wildly optimistic pipe-dream at the moment :D )

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
pixelgeek
 Post subject: Rules Review Blog
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 5:39 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2003 8:10 pm
Posts: 2642
Location: Edmonton, Alberta

(J0k3r @ Jan. 31 2008,04:47)
QUOTE
Well, to my knowledge they have tolerated the original NetEpic and Markconz hasnt been hit wit da copyright hamma so we should be ok as long as all sources are referenced and it is clearly not for profit.

Nope. It is GW's work and IP so unless you write the entire thing from scratch you are still open to a lawsuit or the threat of one.

Either get permission or expect a lawsuit at some point.

I posted a wiki to create an online version of the rules that could be referenced by rule sections and SG's reaction was to tell me to pull it down or they were going to get GW legal on my ass.

Frankly there are enough people here that you could build a wiki or CMS and then get people to rewrite sections of the rules so that you had a totally clean E:A ruleset.

But any plan that goes ahead without some form of clearance from GW legal is going to be in trouble.

IIRC Net Epic got that approval.

_________________
Guns don't break formations. Blast Markers break formations.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
pixelgeek
 Post subject: Rules Review Blog
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 5:42 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2003 8:10 pm
Posts: 2642
Location: Edmonton, Alberta

(Evil and Chaos @ Jan. 31 2008,16:10)
QUOTE
Who should be put forwards for being on the ERC.


Not to sound too negative but the ERC is irrelevant if SG/GW don't want to or don't have the time to update materials.

Get that fixed first then work on getting an ERC that has time to do the work required.

I mention this as a past ERC member who eventually got POed at not being able to get any sort of response from SG regarding movement on the rules.

I've emailed Jervis to see if he would be in favour of a community controlled set of E:A rules and what sort of legal issues that would involved.

I'll let you all know if I get a response.

I would be more than happy to contribute to a community controlled ruleset but I am not interested in working on something that GW hosts/controls.

_________________
Guns don't break formations. Blast Markers break formations.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Moscovian
 Post subject: Rules Review Blog
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 5:56 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6414
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
Do you (or anyone else) know how NetEpic got that approval?  I was always under the impression that NetEpic's existence was simply tolerated by GW.  Personally I can't see GW even noticing that a new NetEA exists.  Greg Lane himself has not posted on the SG Forum since May 2007 and word was that he didn't even see the petition I posted asking for him to be removed from the ERC.   Andy doesn't post at all.  We're not talking about a group that has 'the pulse of the community'.  They don't and won't care.

I say we should just move forward and do it.  The worst that can happen is they'll threaten a lawsuit.  Fine!  They threaten, we stop.  But how many YEARS will it take them to figure it out?

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
pixelgeek
 Post subject: Rules Review Blog
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 6:17 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2003 8:10 pm
Posts: 2642
Location: Edmonton, Alberta

(Moscovian @ Feb. 01 2008,08:56)
QUOTE
I say we should just move forward and do it.  The worst that can happen is they'll threaten a lawsuit.  Fine!  They threaten, we stop.  But how many YEARS will it take them to figure it out?

A threat of a lawsuit can be enough to get your website removed from your ISPs servers.

It will also piss off GW and pretty much poison any relationship you have with them

I say, talk to GW about a potential fan based ruleset. Find out what they want. And if they don't give permission then rewrite the rules and remove any GW IP. At that point they can't object

_________________
Guns don't break formations. Blast Markers break formations.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Moscovian
 Post subject: Rules Review Blog
PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 6:56 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6414
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
Host the files on savefile or other site...  Problem solved. :devil:  The rest of is is just discussion and they can't sue us for discussing things.

Seriously, I don't want problems.  I just want a game I can play that actually will grow.  I think we can do it and I think we can do it safely and free of GW interference.  Personally I wouold rather just ignore them since once you contact them and they say 'no' there is a higher level of culpability in continuing.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Markconz
 Post subject: Rules Review Blog
PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 6:21 am 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand
Some information from Primarch (Netepic primary coordinator) that I thought might be relevant to this thread and discussion:

Question:
To what extent did Netepic ever have a formal committee? Did you outline positions, responsibilities, terms of office etc, or was it always a more informal process with people stepping up as needed?

Answer:
Truth be told its quite informal. The only "formal" position being me coordinating everything.

We usually work on a volunteer basis. People offer to do "x" and I put them into contact with those doing related job.

We place deadlines and I keep tabs on everything and the people who do them to inquire on status.

If real life incapacitates someone from doing the job, I find a replacement to do it.

It has worked well and I have had no frictions of problems getting things done in over 10 years.

The only slow going is getting netepic Gold ready, but that is due to the fact that i needed to basically hire someone to do the layout since we need professional help to do it.

But for the normal revisions and such things were done without a hitch.

If you can get a small cadre of 2-3 dedicated people besides yourself, thats all you'll ever need, since even ONE motivated person gets a lot done.

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
fracas
 Post subject: Rules Review Blog
PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 3:53 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother

Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2003 6:28 pm
Posts: 30
is netepic sufficiently different from the published rule book to warrant a new printing?
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Ginger
 Post subject: Rules Review Blog
PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 7:13 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK
Guys, without meaning to be rude here, I am sure the discussion about Net:EA is very premature for a number of reasons, not least because of the implications of the relationship (or lack of it) with GW/SG.

I believe that we all agree on the need to centralise the effort to maintain / develop the core rules and army lists. However, I do not think a totally fan based effort is necessarily incompatible with GW/SG corporate goals - and if we can get sufficient numbers agreeing upon the process and provide a unified result that is ?representative of the community as a whole, I am sure that GW/SG would at least consider adopting it. IMO the recent army list competition run by SG, together with the continued presence of E:A on the GW/SG website, are an indication of a willingness to consider this possibility.

Our current problem is really whether we can get sufficient people agreeing upon the way to maintain/develop the rules and army lists, and whether we can ensure this is representative and supports the silent majority who either do not post, or are completely oblivious of the forums altogether. Only at that point do we really need to consider where the final result is officially hosted and the format (download, book etc)

IMO our biggest concern should be finding ways to bring together the disparate parts of the community including:-
? - JJ, AH and other official GW/SG views (if there are any);
? - Past leading lights including old ERC members;
? - The various global communities
? - Tournament groups
? - etc

It has always been my hope that we could use the development of the "Handbook" to achieve this unity of purpose by providing something concrete that others can join in.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Ginger
 Post subject: Rules Review Blog
PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 7:30 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 7:20 pm
Posts: 5483
Location: London, UK

(pixelgeek @ Feb. 01 2008,16:42)
QUOTE

(Evil and Chaos @ Jan. 31 2008,16:10)
QUOTE
Who should be put forwards for being on the ERC.


Not to sound too negative but the ERC is irrelevant if SG/GW don't want to or don't have the time to update materials.

Get that fixed first then work on getting an ERC that has time to do the work required.

I mention this as a past ERC member who eventually got POed at not being able to get any sort of response from SG regarding movement on the rules.

I've emailed Jervis to see if he would be in favour of a community controlled set of E:A rules and what sort of legal issues that would involved.

I'll let you all know if I get a response.

I would be more than happy to contribute to a community controlled ruleset but I am not interested in working on something that GW hosts/controls.

While I understand the past frustrations, in my niaive opinion, what Markonz and Neal have achieved is to present something concrete that GW/SG can adopt if they deem it appropriate. What is lacking is a credible process for development, and a group whose judgement the community trust to "authorise" the result.

Thus IMHO, our next step should indeed be to create this new ERC and development process in such a way that it gains a significant majority support, so that it assumes the community authority. It is this group that would then be in a position to work with GW/SG if corporation is prepared to listen.

If we do succeed in creating a new re-envigorated ERC that is still unable to communicate with GW, we are essentially in the same position we have been for a number of years - except that we will now have a more unified community that is better able to act independently if necessary.

_________________
"Play up and play the game"

Vitai lampada
Sir Hemry Newbolt
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Markconz
 Post subject: Rules Review Blog
PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 8:03 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand
Yes I agree with you Ginger, the two aspects are not necessarily incompatible. It's what I said here:
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/cgi-bin....y238799

I was just highlighting how community based aspects of such processes have run in the past, because these are going to be a necessary part of overall processes whether SG wants to play ball or not.

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Moscovian
 Post subject: Rules Review Blog
PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 8:44 pm 
Brood Brother
Brood Brother
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 6:32 pm
Posts: 6414
Location: Allentown, Pennsylvania USA
[quote="Ginger,Feb. 02 2008,13:13"][/quote]
IMO our biggest concern should be finding ways to bring together the disparate parts of the community including:-
?- JJ, AH and other official GW/SG views (if there are any);
?- Past leading lights including old ERC members;
?- The various global communities
?- Tournament groups
?- etc


Ginger, if you read Neal's post you'll see what the views of Andy and Jervis are (the official views as you call it). ?Their big plan is to do nothing. ?They think that the vast majority of the experimental rules that have been accepted by the community at large and the ERC are appealing to rules lawyers (!!?!?).

You can easily see what has happened to the "leading lights". ?Sotec quit. ?Greg abandoned the community but still considers himself king - the very rule changes he was touting as necessary he now says are unnecessary. ?Neal is here telling you what the rest of them are doing- more specifically what they are not doing, your one remaining light.

Involving the global communities and tournament groups is worthless if there is nothing in which to involve them.

The mere fact that they are even discussing anything is because 50+ of us called to oust the Rules Champion.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Markconz
 Post subject: Rules Review Blog
PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 9:07 pm 
Purestrain
Purestrain
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 10:43 pm
Posts: 7925
Location: New Zealand

(Moscovian @ Feb. 02 2008,18:44)
QUOTE
The mere fact that they are even discussing anything is because 50+ of us called to oust the Rules Champion.

Precisely  :)  
More is happening than it was (and thanks again for organising the petition Moscovian). It's still early days yet. I don't blame Jervis for being cautious having only just poked his nose outside the tower to see what all the noise was all about...

Like I say lets continue to gather strength and support.

_________________
http://hordesofthings.blogspot.co.nz/
Top
 Profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
  Print view Previous topic | Next topic 
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 7 of 11
  [ 165 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powered by phpBB ® Forum Software © phpBB Group
CoDFaction Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net