Surely the discussion is a response to earlier accusations that NetERC is an Old Boys club and a closed shop. This thread is for everyone to see the discussion in the open, see the pros and cons articulated for various options and to express their own personal opinion.

If you look back over the whole thread you'll see that C/S is not replying to every single post but is reading and watching them all.

I have no doubt that C/S will make a clear and concise decision, but that it will have been a decision influenced and shaped by the views and opinions of us all.

We are all regular members and we have all contributed to the past development of Epic, and we will all hopefully contribute to the future development of Epic.

Thanks

James

Such accusations were unfounded in my opinion, but I take your point.

The problem, however, is that you cannot design an effective system by this sort of discussion. On any forum, you will always have more experienced players, and this is particularly the case with Epic, and these players are those who need to take the lead here, so it seems entirely natural to me that the decision about how this is going to work should be taken by the 'higher ups'.



I have read the whole thread . That's why it has taken me several days to reply.



You cannot design an effective system by a massive committee, so while we may all be having a say here, it will be up to those at the top to sort this out. I think that it would just be easier and more conducive to moving on if those at the top come up with a proposal as I outlined above, and then if anyone really objects to it, they can say why, and propose amendments.

_________________

That would be me. I have tried to be careful in the past. I have deliberately not got involved in development decisions, but the fact that I run this site really means that I am the most constant member here, and therefore have the ability to organise the NetERC when required.

There will be a time when I put down thoughts and decisions in writing, a 'this is how its going to be' declaration. However, I want as many people to have an opinion and know that their opinion is read and considered, and I want to make sure that I can see things from as many different perspectives as possible, first.



This will happen. However, the entire structure of the system is up for discussion at this point, and therefore there are no assumptions being made. If the first decision is that the NetERC continue, whether they form the core of a new structure or things remain largely unchanged, then we can look at the rest of things and the people. Its one of the reasons that my first post in this thread is careful to state that this discussion is about the roles, and no membership issues will be discussed here until we have a structure. At that point, your 'applying for a job' analogy fits well.



Thats the hope. This thread is not about necessarily making hard decisions, but about putting viewpoints and opinions across. There are several points here that would have escaped me otherwise, and I am finding this a valuable resource. Epic is game that we all love, and it isnt in the hands of any one person. It isnt really in the hands of this forum either - which we need to keep in mind - and there is a larger community that we should also attempt to serve. I would hope that anyone who has the inclination is able to contribute to the development of the game, and that players who just want to play and not contribute are able to do that as easy as possible, too.

And, yes.... I am watching all posts!!!



I do agree. But, the players who step up to make the decision a) need to be aware that there is a responsibility to keep a variety of viewpoints in consideration, and b) this opportunity should be available to a variety of people. Epic isnt just a game of developers who have been playing for years, and I think that this message has got lost over the years, as the development, presentation and structure has become more complicated and less open to 'outsiders' and new players. I would like to bring this back, and open up accessibility as much as possible.

Again, to restate, I agree that designing a committee structure... by committee... is an exercise in insanity! I would not want to dodge any bullets here and hope that a concensus is magically formed - although it would be fantastic if it did - and whatever the result of the discussions and decisions, I am afraid that some people will be unhappy that it wasnt their vision.

Many thanks for not only the viewpoints raised here, but the way in which they are put across, without anyone getting heated and everyone keeping things very friendly and civil. There are not too many boards around where that would be conducted so well, and its testament to the community here. So, thank you for making my job easier.

_________________
https://www.cybershadow.ninja - A brief look into my twisted world, including wargames and beyond.
https://www.net-armageddon.org - The official NetEA (Epic Armageddon) site and resource.

So, in summary it seems we generally like the kind of structre and roles that we had, and have quite a broad agreement on what is needed. But there may be a suspicion attached to 'back-room' development; we want the system to be as open as possible (though I am not entirely sure of the form that would take or how that would work):-

• There are a number of activities, each of which need a 'champion', ranging from modelling, tournaments, rules, the various races and lists etc; and 'extra curricula' activities such as fan based publications which may need ad-hoc organisations
• We desire clarity - the boards should structured such that it is easy to find the core rules, FAQs, lists and aides to playing the game; and to find the associated modelling, histories and separate 'development' sections.
• Separate from the above, there is the need for a 'guiding hand' for Epic covering all aspects - the NetERC (however you want to call it) - made up of sufficient numbers to be able to provide a voting mechanic in the event of a lack of consensus.

= = = = = = = = = = = = =
IMHO, the biggest issue that we have faced is the 'absenteeism' of the various people who volunteered (or were gently nudged) into the positions - irrespective of why that has occurred. Put another way, much of the recent posting has actually revolved around proposing various means to ensure that things continue to work when the incumbant is away from the boards for some length of time.

So, could we also try to define the point when the mechanisms are deemed to be failing; for example is it the number of missed "questions" that an individual has failed to answer, or the time away from the boards, or missed deadlines or what else?

Once we can define the point that some element of the structure is considered to be failing, we can then implement some remedy. Up to now it is this 'drifting' that has been most damaging.

= = = = = = = = = = = = =
Finally, we need to have the means for people to step down, or have 'holidays' away - temporary absences - as well as the means to appoint people to the various positions (however formal or informal the actual mechanism). Up to now this has all been very informal and broadly seems to have worked, so perhaps all that is needed is for a slight tightening of expectations that the post-holders are expected to fulfill.

However, positions have usually been filled by invitation, which is probably one of the underlying reasons behind the BRC accusations (however undeserved).

So could we discuss a 'charter' that people are expected to fulfill as the holder of given positions as well as alternative mechanics to inviting someone to take on a given position.

Thank you CS. That was reassuring to hear.

I think one of the factors that made people see an OBC was indeed the absenteeism coupled with too little information to regular members. Any new system ought to include clearer areas of responseability, easier access to contact information to those in charge of things, and no ong lapses of info and development decisions caused by members in charge of things going away indeifintely without fixing a replacement. When there is little info and no answers forthcoming form those "above" it is easy to think that one is being merely ignored or shut out, thereby creating the illusion of an OBC.

_________________
"Don't use finesse, if force will solve the problem."

- Lieutenant General Michael O'Neal

I agree with Gavin that a "charter of responsibilities" for ERC members, and for Champions too, would not be a bad thing.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I'm in favour of this in principle, but there is a slight issue here. To be able to be a NetERC member, army champion, or some other figure involved in changing the rules and play testing, you have to have a lot of experience of playing Epic EA, and you have to have a lot of regular opponents. This isn't always that easy, and the suggestions from those of us who are far less experienced with the current game (I include myself in this group) are unlikely to be able to contribute very much in terms of development, so you're always going to have to fall back on a structure which is managed by those who have been playing for years, and continue to play regularly.

I don't view this as a bad thing incidentally, it's just something that I feel is worth emphasising. I, for example, rely on the judgement of some of these experienced hands when it comes to modifying the rules and army lists, as I simply don't play enough to be able to have input in this area myself.

_________________

I have kept out of these discusssions however i will bring up the point about the obc.

Too often replacements have been made, not based on the persons activity or drive, but rather some percieved benefit that person will bring. Without naming people, there are army lists out there that had recent appointments to people that have shown a history of absenteism over and above some of our most active members. All that has achieved is a further halt to development due to - you guessed it - absenteism that history would have shown.

If the decisions made are to be seen as transparant, then make them so. Otherwise it really does appear to be 'jobs for the boys'.

Real life as an excuse is what you make of it really. There are definately times when you cannot do stuff, but then there are times when you cannot be bothered for one reason or another. That is a choice you make however, therby it is just an excuse. It is ok to not be bothered, however when you find tgat you cannot be bothered checking or replying to posts for lists you are in charge of (lets say for arguements sake - every one or two weeks), and you have not got an active sub who can take over, it does raise the question whether you really are the best for tge job.

When a position comes up, pick the best person for the job at the time, not the person who people may percieve has something to offer yet has a history of absenteism, because once it starts, the hobby takes second place which is natural.

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

Thanks for the post. Could I ask for more information on the above (without naming anyone or lists in particular)? If decisions are seen to be not transparent, then I would like to know how they come across this way, and what we can do to avoid this in the future.

Thanks.

_________________
https://www.cybershadow.ninja - A brief look into my twisted world, including wargames and beyond.
https://www.net-armageddon.org - The official NetEA (Epic Armageddon) site and resource.

CS

No need. Just be sure that when decisions to fill positions are made, that the history of the person's absenteism in the past year is observed. If it is not then you run the risk of the same position we are now.

If you do decide to 'make the exception' then one has to question why, and if it does happen that the person with the history displays it again (of no fault of their own), be aware as to why people may think of the obc.

There are plenty of good people who are ACTIVE on these lists. People may not think that they are right, however in my experience, giving those people responsibility usually helps them to 'step up' and impress. They may trip up at first, but like anything, with support, they will shine.

What someone has done for the hobby should not be an automatic acceptance for taking the hobby forward into the future. The game owes them only thanks, not a position for the future unless they can show a recent history of commitment. I would think that the last year or two would show who is actually active on this site.

For those others, by not selecting them, you are actually helping them to get their lives together, rather than being placed forward for judgement when they find that their life has changed significantly in the recent past to allow less and less time to a hobby that needs to move forward. Why invite that type of decision? Set the NetEA up for success, not failure.

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

although I agree with your ideal that ACs and NetERC members should be committed to spending the time required of their role, I think that in reality, trying to find someone who can make that kind of unreserved future commitment AND have sufficient experience to carry out their role effectively will shrink an already small pool of people even further. I can see why you would want any body and every body to be eligible to be ACs or NetERC members, but the fact of the matter is that this isn't a democracy, it's a game system. The people who are needed to guide the development of NetEA are not just the most enthusiastic or loudest players out there, but ones who really know what they're doing before they even start on the job of sheparding a list or the whole game system. They need to have been playing the game for long enough that they don't need to ask rules questions or tactics advice, they need to be the ones capable of dispensing the answers. That, for example, would automatically rule me out of contention. It has nothing to do with being an Old Boys Club and everything to do with being a I Know What I'm Doing Club. The fact that some of the people who know what they're doing happen to have been around here for a while is merely a consequence of that, not a reflection of some kind of landed elite.

Also, in response to the "don't give an AC seat to someone who's been absent before", not only does the past not predict the future, but also some ACships are so poisoned by the stubbornly entrenched opinions of the people who play the list that anyone who takes on that ACship needs their head examining. I'm pretty sure a couple of capable candidates passed on taking up that position as a result. So if the community wants more people to want to do the job that they're capable of doing, perhaps we as a community should let them do it?

With all due respect, the system was never open at all. It relied on a formal gaming company (GW) to get feedback from the players, but they ultimately did what they felt was the best thing to do in their judgment because it was their buck/pound/euro. Then the original ERC was left dangling and remained closed, only taking suggestions along the way. The ERC fell off and the NetERC was born, and yet we still relied on them to use their best judgment -not the perception of new players- to steer the game. This system would have persisted successfully were it not for a few key failings:
1. A lack of structure (no clear cut way to replace people, time commitments, etc.)
2. Real life intervention
3. Lack of warm bodies

We should be careful with this new mission IMO, as governing by consensus (in this environment) has just as many pitfalls as the current closed system of the ERC. Putting experienced people in place with a defined mission and guidelines is the only way to go. Solving #1 solves #2 and #3.

While being open and receptive to new players is fine and dandy, allowing them to shape the game is like letting students pick out their own curriculum and grading standards, or taxpayers to pick out how much they'll pay each year. I just don't see how we can move forward without older experienced players exclusively guiding the game. This will be obvious to most and ruffle the feathers of some, but it does need to be stated. That's why I suggested a newer, larger structure to provide more representation without allowing somebody with little to no understanding of the game influence over it.

_________________
author of Syncing Forward and other stories...

It's a dog-eat-dog world, and I've got my Milkbone underwear on.

I'd just like to echo that the success of Epic as a design feat is due to the fact that the design process is open for input, not that decisions are made by consensus. Design-by-committee is never a good idea. The genius of Epic (and Blood Bowl for that matter) is that Jervis managed to gather the input and experiences of so many players while having final say himself.

don't they do that in California?