+- Hydaelyn Role-Players (https://ffxiv-roleplayers.com/mybb18)
+-- Forum: Community (https://ffxiv-roleplayers.com/mybb18/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Forum: RP Discussion (https://ffxiv-roleplayers.com/mybb18/forumdisplay.php?fid=13)
+--- Thread: RPC -- Who are we? (/showthread.php?tid=28)
Re: RPC -- Who are we? - Tyriont - 03-18-2010
Looks good for the most part, although I'd suggest retitling "Powers" to "Abilities" or something similar. It might seem a little nitpicky, but using a softer word can make a complete difference in how that section is percieved. Like Keir, I'm still not overly keen on the intervention aspect but if we put it out as more of a service for intervention when the guilds involved deem it necessary, I'm ok with it.
On the moderator note...not the representatives perhaps, but the individual group leader. I get that there have been issues in the past (I've seen them myself), but I see that as the only way to truly have a fair and equal system without elevating one group over the others.
Re: RPC -- Who are we? - Nanapariri - 03-18-2010
I pretty much agree with Keir and Ty on not being 100% comfortable with the intervention but maybe if its worded more like its a service than a command. Like:
If two guilds are in disagreement and request the Council to mediate the dispute. If they choose to use this service they must agree to follow the decision of the RPC.
Kind of like saying wer're here to help if needed but we aren't trying to be Big Brother.
Re: RPC -- Who are we? - Verence - 03-18-2010
I dunno, I like it the way it is. It does say "only when absolutely necessary", and the aim of the RPC is to maintain peaceful and amicable relations. If we have two guilds in a public grudge match, that's going to affect all of us within the community as well as make us look bad to those outside the community. If neither side is willing to back down or talk, I really do think it's perfectly within the reasonable bounds of the RPC to say "Look, it's time to do something here."
Re: RPC -- Who are we? - Nanapariri - 03-18-2010
Verence Wrote:I dunno, I like it the way it is. It does say "only when absolutely necessary", and the aim of the RPC is to maintain peaceful and amicable relations. If we have two guilds in a public grudge match, that's going to affect all of us within the community as well as make us look bad to those outside the community. If neither side is willing to back down or talk, I really do think it's perfectly within the reasonable bounds of the RPC to say "Look, it's time to do something here."
The whole ambiguity of how the RPC is to judge when "its absolutely necessary" is what bothers me. Two guild might think that one guild stole their guild theme and demand we decide who gets to keep it stating "its absolutely necessary" which is a silly dispute. That very wording is the thing that makes me the most nervous.
It seems most of you insist that this is necessary so if you do intend to do this word it in a clear way saying exactly what kind of disputes you'll get involved in because it will save the Council a lot of trouble.
Re: RPC -- Who are we? - Eva - 03-18-2010
I agree with both points. Perhaps if we state something in the RPC policies explicitly indicating that if at least two neutral individuals (people who are not members of either conflicting guild) approach the RPC concerning the matter, the RPC may be authorized to intervene/mediate. The number two is of course subject to change, but I feel that this is a good number, and this would mean that the conflict is overflowing from the particular guilds involved, and other RPers in the community are being impacted by it. Just thinking out loud of a way to quantify this. The only way I can see this falling short would be if two individuals cooperatively approach the RPC about non-issues (making false claims, smear campaigns, overly sensitive behavior), but in such an instance the RPC can make that distinction and choose not to take any action if it seems unwarranted and the guilds are either not in conflict at all, or not to a point where they are unable to work it out for themselves.
Re: RPC -- Who are we? - ramdragn - 03-18-2010
I have always found hierarchies to be rather effective. I read about what to do or when but rather should work, in my experienced opinion, pretty much as legislation do. For instance:
To take out the whole intimidating power of the RPC overruling the others, there can be a simple ladder process. If a conflict begins between two guilds/ls both LS can have representatives or legislators who represent each guild. They both will gather and talk about the problem and try to solve it. Who is representative depends on the guilds, and the whole issue evolves between the conflicting guilds. (Since there is communication between representatives the influences to fighting from the whole angry or disagreeing group will be diminished, in other words, less peer presure)
If communication between the representatives does not work, the guilds can ask for intervention from a wider group (RPC for instance) This group would have a spokesman. The spokesman will work as an officer to try and find a simple and easy solution to the problem, again only dealing with 2 representatives making it a conversation of 3. A copy of the log/conversation made to try stop the conflict by themselves will be copied and delivered to the spokesperson.
If that fails, which is rarely, a third higher power (for a lack of word) will be involved. Here a "judge figure" who serves as bridge between the representatives and the "jury" and 3 Jury who out of the parties on dispute will work as decision making.
The whole when, why, and such things i read it quiet well developed in the last posts. This is only to the last issue of making RPC too responsible or too demanding as some argued. (just an idea ^_^ made my life easier in Alexander)
Re: RPC -- Who are we? - Kylin - 03-18-2010
What I had in mind was that if two or more guilds requested RPC intervention in something, the issue would first go to the RPC Council/Representatives. They would talk privately amongst one another to determine whether or not the issue should go public to the coalition or remain strictly between the guilds. So let's say we have 20 RPC representatives. At least 11 (over half) of those reps would have to agree that the issue needs the RPC intervention. If the RPC reps agree to that extent, then the issue would be posted publicly for the entire coaliton to discuss and eventually vote on. This creates a sort of filtering process that allows the RPC Council to keep certain issues away from the coalition if they feel it's silly and doesn't affect all of us.
In this way, the only "power" the RPC Council would have is to determine whether a political related issue is worthy of RPC discussion or not. They couldn't actually intervene themselves, but rather allow it to go on to the next step of public debate and then a vote. Of course, reps could still take part in the debates themselves but they alone wouldn't decide anything other than whether something goes to the entire RPC or not.
This filtering process would likely prevent the vast majority of guild conflicts from involving the entire RP community. That's kind of what I meant by "absolutely necessary." Perhaps I should add more details to that?
Re: RPC -- Who are we? - Nanapariri - 03-18-2010
The heirarchy as you wrote it, and the way to handle disputes, I think is well done.
What I"m saying is that in order to make sure the RPC isn't pulled into stupid disputes that aren't really affecting the whole group you should word that section more clearly. Like the RPC saying only griefing, chronic god-modding or harrasment are issues that affect the whole community and will be dealt with on that level. If you leave it ambigious you'll have to decide on anything they bring that is at issue. Like in my above example a dispute betwwen 2 guilds can be over something petty that neither side can agree one but how would a guild name negatively affect the entire RPC Community. The two guilds can agree to disagree and just drop it and as long as it doesn't escalate to the degree of harassment why would the RPC have to intervene? Just make it clear unless its one of the things ruled against the "charter" its not a big enough deal for the RPC to get involved.
Re: RPC -- Who are we? - Eva - 03-18-2010
Tsumi's suggestions seem within reason.
One thing to be careful of from Castiel's post:
Quote:At least 11 (over half) of those reps would have to agree that the issue needs the RPC intervention.When Crystalline was run democraticly (a bit before your time with us I think Castiel), we had issues where council members were often away on various types of leaves of absense - vacations, personal issues, quit but didn't tell us, etc. While I applaud the end goal of dealing with issues by council vote, it may be a good course of action to impose a time constraint on these votes. Many of the issues we're apt to face are going to be very time-sensitive, and having to wait for every single council member to cast a ballot could prove counterproductive - particularly when many of these people will also be dealing with their own guild issues and, y'know, trying to have fun in-game.
"If > 50% of the votes cast within the next 24 hours" seems a little strict on the council members, but maybe there can be a way to bounce an email to them to let them know a vote is pending or somesuch. Despite ultimately doing away with it in Crystalline, I like democracy. But it is slow....
Re: RPC -- Who are we? - ramdragn - 03-18-2010
If the issue is shortness of voting people it doesn't need to have the whole voting members. For instance, from the 20 people on the voting group the first 5 available will be selected. From those 5 a > 50% would be 3 +/5 to either side.
And I also agree with tsumi, sometimes things are just a dispute of momentary disagreement, is why is best letting them handle it in an ordered manner. The problem is when angry people tend to disorganize, hence the idea of the representatives to talk between themselves (from guild to guild not involving RPC)
By requiring them to have a logged talk before actually presenting the issue to the RPC it will gives them the chance to work it out before even being an RPC issue . . .
Re: RPC -- Who are we? - Zane - 03-18-2010
I still strongly believe that all cross-guild conflict should be first handled by the effected guilds by what ever means they decide to utilize, and then if that breaks down, and more than half of the guilds involved (If 2, then both guilds, if 3, then 2/3 guilds, if 4, 3/4 guilds, etc.) agree to have the RPC intervene, neutral members of the RPC high council who do not have membership in any of the affected guilds work with the representatives of said guilds to reach an amicable situation.
The only time any cross guild arguments should be brought forth to the public for voting/action should be guilds that have permeated so much of the Role-Playing community, Neutral ground has all but vanished (Let's hope a situation like this never arises.) In which case, I believe Zarik's opinion on bringing the matter to the public is a sound one.
As for the time limit on voting, I would agree with Dyterium, but instead of 24 hours, maybe make it 48 or 72? Sometimes and ill placed event could mean an officer may not even hear about an issue during the said 24 hour period, as well as people's heads might still be hot if they're voting on a particularly sensitive topic and might not think rationally when casting a vote. 48 - 72 hours would give all officers ample opportunity to cast their vote, and all to think the situation through to cast their vote appropriately. There's also the matter of a situation blowing over within that time frame. Regardless, as we've seen first hand, a time limit would help sort out problems in a timely manner.
Re: RPC -- Who are we? - Kylin - 03-18-2010
I'll reword "powers" to "abilities."
In regards to section III-F (the RPC intervention stuff currently being discussed), I've so far reworded it as follows:
F) To act as a mediator in guild* conflict only when absolutely necessary for the continuation of the overall roleplay community. If the RPC representatives deem it necessary by majority vote, the issue in question can be brought up for public discussion and then a public vote. Generally, all guilds* are asked to handle conflicts between one another with each other rather than bringing it to the RPC. If this conflict begins to encroach the entire roleplay community in a negative fashion, the RPC may have to step in for the sake of the community’s well being. Extreme cases of cross-guild griefing, harassment, godmode, and so on may warrant RPC intervention.
The process for handling the above is as follows: First, at least two representatives from two different guilds must approach the rest of the RPC Council. They will then discuss the issue and whether it warrants RPC intervention or not. If it does not, it will be dropped there. If the Council does agree to RPC intervention, the issue will be brought to the general RPC public, discussed, and ultimately voted on. The length of time and number of votes required to take the issue to the public will be decided on a case-by-case basis, depending on the number of active RPC representatives available at the time.
I'm not sure how much more I can add without completely watering down the entire thing. I think people should just put some faith in the RPC Council. Each guild is going to select their two most highly qualified members/leaders and I doubt any of them will take the position lightly. If a silly problem crops up, I'm confident they'll push it away and tell the involved parties that it's not the RPC's problem. In regards to gathering votes and the amount of time, I understand that concern (hence the "case-by-case basis" section). This is also where we'll need to trust the individual guilds to a) get in touch with their RPC rep via email, in game, or however they can reach them in order to get swift votes or b) letting the guild simply temporarily or permanently replace the rep if he/she is MIA for too long of a period.
Re: RPC -- Who are we? - Nanapariri - 03-18-2010
I like the rewording I think it addresses all of our concerns and is very clear.
Re: RPC -- Who are we? - Guest - 03-18-2010
I'm a bit late in getting in on this discussion, but everything looks good so far. Keeping the decision making power in the hands of the event organizers is definitely the only way to go. As far as intervening between guilds goes, I don't think it would really be possible to do more than encourage both sides to just drop whatever issue they had with each other by closing any topics they used to argue on our forums. If they continue to stir up trouble between each other on their own sites and in-game, there's not much we can do about that. At least, nothing I can see that would be effective. If they're that adamant about keeping their grudge going, I doubt they will care whether or not we allow them to use our forums, since they'll quite likely just end up associating us with whoever they're fighting anyway. We can still of course offer additional services, and just the fact that we made an attempt to peacefully settle the matter is important by itself, regardless of the outcome.
About Castiel's proposal; I'm wondering exactly what being the "liaison between the roleplay community and the general public" would entail? I'm not sure if it would be best to claim that we speak for the entire community on any issue. If a situation were to ever arise where such a function was necessary, it might be better to decide how to proceed at the time when it presents itself. Perhaps I'm just reading the passage incorrectly though, and if so I apologize. Also, is the idea of communicating with SE itself hypothetical, or are there plans being made to attempt to contact them? I think we're all familiar with SE's track record when it comes to communicating with the fanbase, so I'll assume that passage was added just for the sake of completeness.
As far as any revisions go, rewording it a bit to read less like a formal document and more like what it is, just a statement of intentions by an informal group of individuals with similar interests, might be worth considering. Like Tyriont said, the tone and style of the language used can make a huge amount of difference in how the massage might be perceived.
Re: RPC -- Who are we? - Kylin - 03-18-2010
In order to stay on schedule, the voting will have to start today. So no time for rewording or anything like that now >.>. However, it's not set in stone and we may end up reexamining it before the game actually launches.
In regards to the liaison part: That basically means that the public would come here to see where we stand on specific things, if they are interested in knowing that is. It's also a minor reference to the whole public events concept that we'll hopefully have once every month or two. Those would be open to the entire public (things like competitive sports, talent shows, etc).
I do plan to -attempt- contacting SE in a variety of ways in order to persuade them to add the RPC to their "premier" site list. Nothing may come of it, but it's certainly worth trying. I won't try to do this until we're probably halfway through open beta testing. By then, we'll likely have a much better looking site to impress them and a much larger RPC roster. I would love partnering up with them for little things from time to time. I recall Zam having a pumpkin carving contest and SE awarded the winners those giant pumpkin furnishings. I could see the RPC having writing contests or something and would hope SE supports it in a similar manner. For example, I remember on Sylph when there was a contest about writing up why/how linkpearls had visual capabilities. SE never really gave that info in game so we decided to do it ourselves. It would be awesome to have these kind of little writing contests to help fill in the gaps left by SE and have them actually implement the winning idea. I may be shooting a little too high but it is worth at least trying.