I am keep up with this topic, and appreciate the comments and feedback. However, I wanted to respond to this post as it hits a couple of issues that have either been expressed here generally, or which are new and - I think - key.
mattthemuppet wrote:
is it not possible to make a sub forum in the EA section titled "Army Lists", with one thread for each of the races. Each race AC is then responsible for making sure that each list under his/her umbrella has a current pdf on that thread. It might be hard with some of the lists, given how frequently they're changed, but at least it should be relatively current. Each thread is locked for comments, so it's a simple repository of information. Could be updated monthly to reduce the load.
That then would make it considerably easier to compile and update an Army Book, as all the information would be in one place. It would be even easier if every AC and sub-AC put their lists into the same, easy to cut'n'paste format. This isn't meant to replace the individual race forums, more as an easy way for someone new to the site to find what they need. You could even put an extra thread title "rules" in there too.
The original idea was that each army list development board would have a single pinned thread with the latest version/s (the core army list, plus any sublists), with the version number in the title. While this is not what you are suggesting, the idea was that this would be easier to maintain as it was under the ACs board, and he could therefore moderate it. We could, additionally, have a single core thread in the NetEA Rules board with links to the army lists, if this would help, but it would require much more than that, in my opinion.
mattthemuppet wrote:
As for the NetERC, I think that the membership should be considerably increased. This would:
a) stop people thinking it's a secretive old-boys club where the veterans ignore the views of the unwashed masses
OK, I have to ask.... And please dont take this the wrong way.... But where does this misconception come from? I have made an effort be as inclusive as possible with decisions and development here, to the point where any progress has actually taken longer due to the difficulties of getting a concensus. Believe me, there have been many times when it would have been a lot easier to simply set up an extra private board, invite half a dozen people in and emerge in much less time with a complete list - for example, how EpicUK operates. Now, I am not saying that this is better or worse, and the fact that they are able to put out lists fairly rapidly shows that it is a method that has advantages, but to then run into the same perception from a number of people is a little..... difficult. Honestly, I would like to know why this is prevalent, so that I can do something about it and address any issues that exist, as I really do feel that it is important that development is inclusive and done as a community.
mattthemuppet wrote:
b) spread the load so that individual tasks can be the responsibility of 2 or more people, rather than 2 people have all the tasks and getting burnt out. Again, I've been through a similar experience with the postdoc society I was until recently the chair of. With a dwindling executive committee, more and more tasks were falling to me which I was failing to get done due to lack of time, energy and motivation. We now have a committee with 8 or so members, each of who has a defined set of individual tasks (website maintenance, listserv maintenance, workshop organising, handbook updating etc). Now everyone is motivated, as they have something to be responsible for AND they know that they're not going to have to be responsible for more than that (unless under exceptional circumstances). We also instituted 1yr term limits, so that people know that they're not going to have to do it for ever, and are putting together a manual with details of what each person does, so that replacing them at the end of their term goes much more smoothly (ie. the newcomer doesn't have to learn everything from scratch). So far, it's going fantastically well.
Therefore the process becomes bigger than the people in it, which is the converse of what has happened up until now. I also think an even representation of all the different gaming groups around the world would help keep everything in perspective, given regional variations in playstyles, plus it would help avoid the whole "I'm/ we're being ignored" problem.
The extra numbers shouldn't be an issue when it comes to decision making, provided people understand that they're expected to be able to compromise (hard, I know) and that the chair is allowed to wield some authority to push through a consensus (and prevent the odd dissenter holding things up).
I think that the issue here is not the number of people. With only three people, all active, and a manageable work load, things are fine. The issues arrive when other things get in the way and for whatever reason the work load and commitment increases per person. Personally, rather than simply increasing the NetERC, I would like to see each member have a 'second' that they could share any responsibilities with, and who would be in a position to step in if the primary NetERC member was absent for any reason. I would also like to see each NetERC member have a clear and defined set of responsibilities, so that they could focus on a couple of things and not get snowed under. But, that is one reason that I am asking for opinions in this thread.
mattthemuppet wrote:
I appreciate that the Army Book is the overriding objective and a much needed one, but I think that there are lots of steps, not all directly involved in the book itself, that would make the process go much more smoothly and quickly.
Agreed. While the army book and web site and the two core issues, and they do need to be resolved, there are decisions and structures beyond this, and getting things up and running smoothly will help out across the board - even if only because everyone will be clearer about what the plans are and what is currently being worked on.
Thanks.
