I can't imagine how there could be a conflict of interest. Without a doubt you're the person with the most experience for the job.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

I agree.

_________________
We are returned!
http://www.epic-wargaming.de/

And i.

I imagine that might have been more aimed at me (and Meph)

_________________
www.epic-uk.co.uk
NetEA NetERC Human Lists Chair
NetEA Chaos + Black Legion Champion

Or perhaps the process?

No no, I think it's clear the comment was aimed at Steve and Mephiston.

_________________
Currently doing a plastic scenery kickstarter

I personally like the fact that EUK and NetEA are more closely integrated than in the past. While the two groups have somewhat different aims, I think some standardization between the two organizations is called for. Keeping unit profiles the same between the two would be an admirable goal, for instance. Of course the differing development cycles complicates this aim, but in principle it should be possible.

_________________
SG

Ghost's Paint Blog, where everything goes that isn't something else.

If anyone has any issues regarding the appointment or development of any of the NetERC, then they are welcome to PM me directly. I have a minimal involvement with the selection process now that things are getting back on track in terms of progress and planning.

However, while I can understand some hesitation regarding the potentiall dual roles of members belonging to both NetERC and EpicUK, I am willing to let the actions of the NetERC speak for themselves in the coming developments. Also, I think that it will be beneficial to have EpicUK representation on the NetERC not only to inform the EpicUK group to better allign the two efforts where appropriate, but also to stop the 'reinvention of the wheel where development decisions were made - for example, 'we decided to do it this way at EpicUK because..... although this may not apply to NetEA'.

_________________
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.

actually, the comment was directed primarily at chroma and steve, who are both primary ACs and the the corresponding development chairs for that army, which makes their ability to perform any sort of unbiased oversight pretty much invalid.
to a lesser extent, it refers to moscovians publishing and oversighting the suppliments, and daves oversighting everything and being the most aggressively changing AC we currently have.

the whole (seemingly very one sided) entanglement with the eUK is an entirely seperate and serious problem aswell. but was not the focus of the comment. i wouldnt call that a conflict of interests so much.

but being both the administrator of a section of the game, and then also the person who arbitrates disputes regarding the administrators of that section of the game, represents a very clear conflict of interest, and i am, as mentioned, not keen on that at all. i have no particular beef with the people involved, but the principle of the thing seems to be pretty hopelessly damaged.

I also feel that the whole proceedure could have been much more transparent, and the fact that the ERC selection appears to be the same old faces does nothing to dispell the appearance of an insular, self selecting old boys club.

_________________
~Every Tool Is A Weapon, If You Hold It Right~

While I don't wholly agree with JTG, I do think most of his points are fair (if not as calamitous as he suggests).

_________________
The Apocrypha of Skaros 1.1
Rogue Trader Expedition 0.4
The Horus Heresy 0.5
Night Lords 0.1
My Trade Thread

What you see as an old boys club, I see as the most experienced people being put in charge. It would be downright stupid to put a "fresh face" on the ERC when we got no clue who he is or what he wants.

I do see your point about conflicts of interests when the ACs and the body overseeing the ACs (the ERC) are largely the same people, but, given that there is one AC per army but 5 (I think?) people on the ERC should be more than enough to offset that imbalance. Let's say Dave brings a controversial change to the ERC. What does it matter if he has a vote? There are four others there who can vote him down if he's gone off the deep end. And if it's a hotly debated issue with a roughly even split, it SHOULD be the ACs vote that is the deciding factor. Developing an army shouldn't be the work of a committee, we have ACs for a reason - they're here to take advice, but should ultimatly make the decisions.

I have to agree; I really thought we were trying to avoid people being ACs and ERC members.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread

_________________
My NetEA Lists:
Fir Iolarion Titan Clan List
Dark Angels List

Always looking to Trade!
Angel's Trade Thread

All of the candidates we had for Human chair were Human list ACs to one degree or another. Not much we can do about that. However, it is a "committee", an AC/ERC isn't going to push through changes without at least consulting the rest of the committee. Even if it comes to a vote we can have them sit out and have CS come in to vote so we have an odd number.

As to being more transparent, what were you hoping for? People put their names forward and we talked about them in private. Doing it in a place where the whole community could see would risk people not being honest, hurt feelings and bad blood. All those don't particularly bind a community together.

_________________
Dave

Blog

NetEA Tournament Pack Website

Squats 2019-10-17

Nor do decisions from on-high, with no chance for public discussion.

_________________
http://www.troublemakergames.co.uk/
Epic: Hive Development Thread