Subject:
|
More CW issues (Was: Re: [CW] Mutual stories question and offer)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.castle
|
Date:
|
Thu, 2 Mar 2000 23:09:10 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1048 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.castle, Jason Catena writes:
> Sure, but we haven't posted a public summary of what the current ideas are. I
> don't expect it to be graven in stone, but I do want to see what the latest
> consensus is.
Actually, I can't agree enough. I've tried to follow what's been "current"
concensus, but for the most part, it's been tough, especially with all the
little nits that people bring up in non-related threads every once in a
while... not to mention that not everyone's idea on the matter isn't 100% clear
or up to date to begin with.
What I plan on is sometime at the beginning of April (or thereabouts), to help
solve this. Maybe I'll make a site with the "current" list of functions
available, policies, details, etc. Then I'd start a thread here taking
suggestions/recommendations, and try to update that document as needed. Then,
(hopefully) come May, we'll have a semi-set-in-stone set of rules to go on for
when the site gets built.
> If realm/map space is unlimited, what does it matter if a realm with a defined
> purpose currently doesn't have any structures? I'm thinking of people with
> continent-spanning maps, and eventual plans to fill them with structures. Why,
> if space is unlimited, prevent them from having that space in the meantime?
> [snip]
> Since realm size is fixed, this leads to tremendous headaches for people with
> a real plan for many many realms. They're constantly going to be hoping that
> no little one-realm occupant puts a realm in the path of their already-mapped
> plan. If someone does, they're going to have to relocate and change the world
> map yet again.
>
> I think it makes a lot more sense, if someone has a continent planned out up
> front, to just give them as much space as they say they need, and say that
> other people have to have realms outside the area that's been reserved. Since
> map space is not limited, this shouldn't be a resource problem.
> [snip]
> Why not? Map space is not limited, so there's no reason anyone else will ever
> need to use the space that's been reserved. The reason people might need to
> reserve realms that are unused for a while is that people have limits to their
> time and number of bricks, and the size of a realm has been fixed. (Make each
> realm have an arbitrary size upon creation, or no fixed size at all, and most
> of my objections here disappear).
> [snip]
> Again, since map space is unlimited, I don't see why people can't be given
> realms that they have a plan for. If you have a map, and you intend to fill it
> eventually, and you need 100 fixed size realms to model the map, then why not?
> It doesn't hurt anyone to have a temporarily empty realm, since another member
> will never have a need to use that space.
>
> That said, I think that having a plan is different from someone who says "I
> need 100 realms, but I have no idea what I'd do with them." People with a plan
> should be allocated the space, people with no plan should be politely asked to
> come up with one before the map is drawn for them.
Well, the issue here is mainly that if someone creates a continent-spanning
idea, the admins need to create/import a new section of the map, and set it
aside for that member. I personally don't want to go adding new sections of the
map each time someone comes up with a huge project plan, especially if that
person later on abandons that plan.
<way-back-machine topic="Dave's MUD-adminning days">
When I was an admin for a MUD, we had a bunch of people who had great, grande
schemes, with intricate plots, etc., who ended up biting off more than they
could chew. We had a whole bunch of areas of the MUD that were only the very
beginnings of ambitious projects. We did, however, have *1* programmer (out of
about 30) who had a solid, well-developed plan, that came to fruition. I don't
want a repeat of this kind of statistic.
</way-back-machine>
Some possible solutions:
- people with large, unfinished areas reserved, aren't part of the "real" map
of CW. Their information is listed on the site, all their buildings, etc. are
stored in the DB, but their section of the map is unconnected to the "real"
map until it's "full enough" to join with the existing map.
- people can reserve as much space as they want to, AND have the option to
submit NEW realms and map areas for consideration. This has two
possibilities:
1. person creates a new map, submits it in as a 'hopeful', and the admins
simply 'ok' it or deny it, with suitable reasons (placement, size,
etc., whatever viable denial reasons are)
2. members can simply create new realms and map areas at their slightest
whimsey, with no approval from anyone.
> How is having claimed, unused realms a problem? If it's apparent after two
> years that someone just isn't a contributor, then perhaps the space they've
> been allocated can be recycled. But I don't think that someone who actually
> has a plan should be denied the space they need in the first place. Again,
> we have all the space we could ever ask for on the map, so I don't see why
> we need to be stingy with it.
> [snip]
> I think that if someone completely new comes to Castle World with a map and a
> plan and is refused the space they need on the map, they're just not going to
> contribute to Castle World at all. You've said below that the better way to
> admin is to be reactive, so why not clean up eventually those realms that
> obviously are never going to be used, rather than prevent a hopeful with good
> intentions from getting what they believe they need?
There's two issues here-- at what point is it decided that a user is no longer
going to commit to a project? And, when they reach that point, what would we do
with their lands & structures/characters/etc? Do their realms just go up for
grabs? If so, I fear we might end up with a vastly huge map with very little
density, since people who might need those claimed areas for space can just as
easily make their own new areas which conform perfectly to their desires!
Hence, the old land just sits there unused-- OR their lands are removed from
the map (but their structures remain in the DB for reference, and for potential
placement if they ever come back to the project)
Anyway, that's the main consequence of not being stingy with map space-- a huge
unused map, which I'd really rather not have.. I'd much rather people used the
land that IS there, rather than create whole new map areas. However, you do
have a point-- SOME people DO want to reserve huge map spaces. I think I would
merely suggest to members in the "formal CW etiquette" NOT to create new map
sections UNLESS they really have their heart set on using it. Hence, a
guideline more than a rule.
> I trust admins to implement policy, correct abuses of the system, and enforce
> the rules. I do not trust admins to create policy in the first place, and I
> don't trust them to determine the overall direction of a cooperative system.
>
> I think we should have a split system, where policy is determined by the
> whole membership, and implemented and enforced by the admins (this models a
> legislative vs. executive/judicial branch split).
>
> That said, if policy is made that cannot or will not be enforced, I think
> that should be discussed, rather than any kind of veto power assigned.
> Members are not going to find an admin's veto on policy to be cooperative,
> and admins are not going to feel that members who ignore the admins'
> limitations are being courteous.
> [snip]
> If policy is made that cannot or will not be enforced, I think that that
> should be discussed, rather than any kind of veto power assigned. Members
> are not going to find an admin's veto on policy to be cooperative, and
> admins are not going to feel that members who ignore the admins' limitations
> are being courteous.
> [snip]
> As you've said, a truly democratic system may not be the most effective at
> enforcing the rules, but I feel it's the only real way to go with making
> policy decisions.
For the most part, I agree exactly with what you're saying-- Admins enforce
policy. However, the part I disagree with is that I think admins DO have final
say in policy decisions. Again, 99% of the time, these decisions will be agreed
on by the members in a democratic-ish fashion, but all policies need to go
through the admins. Hence, in theory, if I was the only admin, and I said I
won't allow members to reserve empty realms, then that would be final, no
matter what the members feelings on the matter were. As a result, (assuming
that the majority ruled that members COULD reserve empty realms) there would be
few members who would actually USE the site, but I'd still have final say. It'd
just be that I'd be comprimising my usability for stubborness.
Apart from that, admins are under obligation to follow the established
policies. Admins can't act against those policies. The exception being that
they can modify the policies, then act. But note here, that modifying policies
isn't a small task-- AND, when it's done, the users need to be notified, and
SHOULD be notified BEFORE the admins act on the new policies. I say "should" in
the case of extremes. That's just good practice in general. Again, if admins
modify their policies constantly to fit their personal desires, or if they
modify them and act on them without informing the members first, they'll start
loosing members faster than lemmings running of a cliff. In other words, admins
may have veto power over member-suggested policies, but members have veto power
by not using the system.
> [snip]
> I basically agree with you here. (I assume you mean 50 of the same picture,
> or of the same structure. If someone has pictures of 50 different custom
> structures, I don't see why they can't fairly claim 50 realms under this
> allocation system.)
Ooops... yes, your assumption was correct. I don't want someone posting their
fort design 50 times and claiming it's a different structure each time. (Unless
it's something like a kingdom's "standardized" watchtower or something that
COULD be realistically repeated)
> I agree with you here. (I assume the rule that "porn pictures are bad" would
> be in a terms of service somewhere, not an immediately created, new rule).
Well, yes. We'd try to cover every possibility of policy in the terms of use,
but assuming we miss something major like that, I don't think I'd hesitate to
act as an admin before correcting the policy. Again, that's for a major thing
like pornography-- not some persnickity rule about the number of realms allowed
per active user with membership status for X years, etc. As stated before,
policies MAY change without notice-- it's just bad practice, and it runs the
risk of users abandoning CW. I think if we organize everything correctly at
THIS stage, we can avoid major policy changes later.
> I think an admin who acts outside the bounds of the rules that have already
> been decided on by the membership should be censured. I disagree vehemently
> with a Castle World admin who will "reserve the right to do whatsoever he
> chooses," because that admin is ignoring the role of the membership in
> deciding for itself what policies it wants to adopt. Even Todd follows his
> Terms of Service in justifying his actions, so people are violating rules
> that they've agreed to, not an arbitrary objection that Todd decided to make
> up that day.
> [snip]
> I do not think that admins should have the right to create policy without
> the direct involvement of the members. I don't think admins should have free
> license to determine policy, or decide that a policy isn't something they
> want to enforce.
>
> Admins should have the role of enforcing the rules, not creating rules by
> themselves. Otherwise, you remove the cooperation from the creed, and people
> will just leave because they don't have a voice, and 'Cooperation, Courtesy,
> Creativity" is just a bunch of words.
"Should be", yes. But that's not always the case. I'll say right off the bat,
that at this point, it looks like I'll probably be the "head" admin since I'm
probably going to be the only one with direct control over the site itself. At
present, the server CW will be hosted on (assuming this doesn't change) is
owned by a friend of mine who will let us run all this for free [well.. ok, I
DID buy him a 10 gig hard drive for Xmas, and I'll probably do something
similar again if CW gets to be huge, so not 'really' free], and my friend has
expressed extreme discretion in allowing accounts for people he doesn't know.
Hence, it would be rather impossible to censure me in this sense, probably
being the only one with access to the server. HOWEVER, as stated, I will not
(barring the ludicrous situation) act against established policies, and neither
will any other admins.
This entire thing is just a huge service-- we (as admins) will try and cater as
best we can to the members, in order to actually be used! If we don't, well,
then the project is for naught. We won't act against our own policies, but the
only consequence of not upholding them is our reputation, and members' usage.
Basically, I'm just trying to cover the potential disastrous situation. In
general, the established rule is that admins WILL NOT change policy without the
consent of members. BUT in the unlikely event that something completely
unforseen happens, we may. I just don't want to be caught going against my word
at some later date! :) In reality, I don't think any admin will ever go against
clearly established policy, or create new policies without the consent of the
members.
> I'd like to say again how much I appreciate your involvement in this project,
> Dave! The better we set up Castle World to be automated, with little long-term
> maintenance, the more it will thrive like LUGNET.
Hopefully we can make it there! :)
Thanks for the ongoing input!
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: [CW] Mutual stories question and offer
|
| (...) Sure, but we haven't posted a public summary of what the current ideas are. I don't expect it to be graven in stone, but I do want to see what the latest consensus is. (...) I like this idea of specifying, when you submit a creation, whether (...) (24 years ago, 2-Mar-00, to lugnet.castle)
|
17 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
