EU Development & Planning Advisory Board

[HardWrath]

Note: This thread is an evolving and interactive work in progress. As the discussion progresses, this original post is updated with additions, modifications, or clarification. Please read the original post and then jump toward the end of the thread to take part in the current conversation. If you wish to see the entire evolution of this, please feel free to read the whole thread, many people have made a contribution to this and a lot of the below ideas come from the people who have posted in this thread

Marco has subscribed to this thread however due to how busy they are with VU10.0, the bug fixes, and updates, he wants to wait until October to dive into this topic. That gives us plenty of time to work out the details.

----------------------------------------------------------------
In early August, several threads were created regarding an Entropia Government. Let me be very clear about this, the DPAB is NOT a government in any way shape or form.

This proposal has two fundamental parts:
1. Create a place where MA and FPC can bring their ideas to us BEFORE implementing them. First they let us fine tune the concept of whatever new feature or system they want to launch. This will make these new things by far more enjoyable, more usable, and more successful.

2. Ideas, concerns, or whatever that have a lot of support in the EU community could be championed by the DPAB. If MA or FPC arent being receptive to an idea, we would find out why they are against it, and if possible overcome the objection by finding a viable solution. A perfect example would be the in-game rental system idea.

Regarding an Entropia Government:
I want to say that I am 100% totally and completely against anything that governs, or pretends to govern anything in the Entropia Universe. I am especially against anything that puts a tax on EU participants so someone can run around and play Governor with our money.

I don’t need some "Government" telling me how to play EU. Leave me alone, leave my ped alone. Furthermore, I don’t need anyone representing me or my ideas. I am perfectly capable of speaking for myself and conveying my thoughts to others.

‘Nuff said!

A couple of months ago, this post was made by Marco:

Me, FPC, whatever, liked the alliance as a starting point of a political movement, a step to a more "civilized" community. But I am not sure that the Landgrab event, as intended to be a PvP battle match, is the right venue. From my point of view we however need to introduce other contest into Calypso where politics have a vital role to play and make this into an exciting gameplay element as well. Be it elections, be it that the continents are differentiated into states where avatars can become governors of the states, etc. The potential is there.

Maybe add a state-wide tax that goes to the governors budget? ,-)

Since Marco is the CEO of First Planet Company, if Marco wants a Government, he will probably get it one way or another.

I think that most of the people who are in favor of an EU Government, only favor it because of the fun and interesting dynamics the democratic election process would bring to Calypso. The problem with that election process is the result, which is the elected official(s) running around trying to govern the rest of us while making decisions that please one group of people at the expense or frustration of another group.

There is no doubt that the process of democratic elections would in fact bring a fun and interesting dynamic to EU. The problem is the result of them. If only there was a way to have these democratic elections without having a government or elected officials as the result.

According to polls that have been done about Government in EU only about 10% to 20%% of people want one. Seeing as how only a very small percentage voted in favor of an EU Government, it would be very hard to justify the creation of one. With that said, MindArk almost never really asks our opinion on anything, MindArk does what MindArk wants to do and they hope for the best, which is exactly the fundamental problem that I want to address through the proposed solution below.

When Project Entropia was first created, MindArk had an official forum where they asked for people's thoughts, opinions, and advice on various aspects of the game. When they had an idea they would often times present it to us and get our feedback on it. Eventually, various kinds of nefarious people ruined that forum and MindArk closed it for that and other reasons. From there, the bulk of people started using the Entropia Pioneers forum, which essentially for awhile was the de facto forum for the EU. MindArk, on a limited scale, would seek advice and opinions of EU players but eventually that forum was also destroyed by a bunch of misfits, trolls, and the like who caused excessive moderation to set in. Now we have the Entropia Forum and as years have gone by, MindArk seeks our advice less and less. These days, for better or worse, they mainly just announce things.

In my proposal below, a few things are accomplished
1. Gives us the fun and interesting dynamics of democratic elections without the undesired result of an elected official, government, etc.
2. Gives people a reason to get involved with and be interested in the election process one way or another.
3. Creates a controlled environment where MindArk can involve the EU player base on the developmental processes of the Entropia Universe again.
4. Gives the player base a louder collective voice on topics that need it.

I have a bit of experience creating something similar to what this will develop into. First we need to discuss the framework and rules of it. We need to discuss how it will function and piece it all together accordingly. In October we will here from Marco and hopefully get his input. I would like it very much if Marco took the time to have an open discussion with us about this topic.

Because of how massive this thread is, in October I will probably close this thread and create a new one. That way we can copy and paste what we have put together and then start fresh with Marco.

It is my intent to have an open and constructive debate on all components of this. In the spirit of that, let’s all try to understand the position of the person with an opposite opinion before we post a reply.

Also, please do not feed the trolls, just ignore them.

Below is my proposal, it is an evolving work in progress. As new ideas and opinions are submitted, I edit this post and make changes where needed, recent changes will usually be in a different color.

Development & Planning Advisory Board
DPAB​

The name needs to be descriptive of what the essence of the organization is. Entropia Council sounds cooler but does not represent what it will be. Of course, the word "council" can also be used in a broad way. Will this be called the DPAB? Probably not but for now it works.

Mission Statement:
Together with MA, FPC, and other Planet Partners, we will create and maintain an atmosphere that is conducive to constructive forward thinking dialog while making it possible to involve the EU player base as a whole in the future development of the Entropia Universe.

Description:
The DPAB will be a transparent organization created by the people, with members from among the people, who are chosen by the people of EU. DPAB will serve the dual purpose of maintaining an open dialog with EU officials and Planet Partner officials while also maintaining an open dialog with the player base as a whole.

MindArk and/or the Planet Partners will have to host a single web forum where elected members of the Entropia Universe will participate in the planning and development of the Entropia Universe itself. The EU player base will elect the members and those members will elect their leader. Debates on DPAB operations or policy changes will be settled democratically. In summary, the webform must be "officially owned" but still managed and organized by the EU player base.

The DPAB shall in no way claim, or try to claim to be the Vox Populi (voice of the people) nor shall it claim to be representative thereof. The DPAB is strictly a body of elected EU participants who engage in open and transparent communication with MindArk, First Planet Company, along with any other Planet Partners who are interested in tapping into EU player base to more effectively think of, review, and install new features or components to their virtual world.

Governance
The DPAB will have governance over nothing except for itself. It can never seek to govern, control, or dictate components of game play and it especially cannot interfere with an individual's game play. The DPAB can never serve as a "middle man" between EU Officials and the daily operations or communications of EU participants. The DPAB exists for the sole purpose of creating and maintaining an environment in EU where MA, FPC, and Planet Partners include the EU player base in the development and planning of the Entropia Universe.

The DPAB can never evolve into a governmental body of any kind. If any Planet Partners wishes to implement a Governmental system on their planet, they are highly encouraged to bring the idea(s) to the DPAB for discussion, debate, and idea exchange. If any Planet Company were to install a Governmental body on their Virtual World then it would have to be totally separate from the DPAB. The DPAB will always be nothing more than a group of elected individuals who have real life discussion with MA, FPC, PPs (via a transparent web-forum) regarding the development of the Virtual Worlds in the Entropia Universe.

Checks and Balances
The EU population will elect individuals of their choosing to ensure the following things are being upheld:

- Open communication between the DPAB and the EU population
- No interference with existing or future communication methods between the individual participant and MindArk or Planet Companies
- All DPAB members must follow the published DPAB ethics and rules

Operational policies shall always be subject to review to ensure we are operating in a way that is of benefit to both the player base and also MA, FPC, and Planet Partners

DPAB Size & Member Selection
The size of the DPAB will be large enough to support active and healthy dialog between a spectrum of members that reasonably spans across all facets of EU.

Members of the DPAB will derive from the following sources:

General Election
Every 6 months a general election among the EU player base will be conducted where members are voted into a 6-month term. Those who are elected can serve unlimited consecutive terms, subject to reelection.
- 25 individuals from each planet
- 3 "Watchdogs" from each planet will be elected for the purpose of ensuring members, leaders, and the DPAB itself are all operating in compliance with the expectations of the EU player base. If they spot a problem, their job is to raise the issue with the advisory board, and if a resolution is not reached they are to "blow the whistle" and act accordingly and in a public way if needed. Through right action and open communication, the Watchdogs are in place to ensure the EU population does not lose trust in the DPAB itself.

Appointment
- MindArk, FPC, and other Planet Partners can appoint players from the EU population as needed.
- Each elected DPAB leader can appoint up to 5 people however each must pass a popular vote in the DPAB member body.

Special Election for Temporary Membership
In the interest of ensuring that no good idea or plan is ignored, the EU population as a whole can cause a special election on the DPAB forum. Both DPAB members and the EU population are able to vote for or against it. The result of that election will determine if the individual is able to temporarily join the DPAB for purpose of discussing their specific topic. Generally, non-members of the DPAB will simply just post their ideas in the public section of the DPAB forum.

Leadership Election & Ranks
The leaders of DPAB, known as "Administrators" will serve the purpose of upholding DPAB policy, ethics, and posting standards. He/she will serve as a Forum Moderator/Group Leader (vBulletin terminology) in the DPAB forums. The elected members of each Planet will elect an Administrator.

- Every 6 months the DPAB members of each Planet will elect a new person from among its members to the position of Administrator. No one can serve consecutive 6-month terms, however an individual can serve multiple terms with at least a 6-month gap in between each.
- Former Administrators will (after their term) remain as a "Leader Advisor" to the new elected Administrator of that planet.
- The Administrator can nominate people into special positions such as "spokesperson" from among the DPAB members. Any nomination must be confirmed or denied by the DPAB through popular vote.
- From among the watchdogs elected, 1 person per planet will be chosen by the watchdogs who will also serve as forum moderator for the purpose of being able to see any deleted or edited threads and posts from within the DPAB

Operational Structure
The DPAB will initially go through a 6-month trial period where all facets of operations will be reviewed. The DPAB will have to operate on a dedicated site owned by MindArk that includes a forum with vBulletin technology to maintain uniformity with other popular EU related fan sites such as www.EntropiaForum.com and to ensure all modern forum technology and functionality is available.

Within the DPAB forum, there will be two sections.
1. Open section for any EU participant to post in and interact with DPAB members or even EU officials.
2. Restricted section that is visible to all EU participants but only DPAB members and EU officials can post.

Each involved Planet Partner, along with MindArk will have their own subforum within both sections of the DPAB forum. An example of the sub-forum breakdown is as follows:

Member's Section
- MindArk
- First Planet Company
- ABC Planet Partner
- XYX Planet Partner
- General Discussion
- DPAB Operations
- Off Topic

Public Section
- News
- MindArk
- First Planet Company
- ABC Planet Partner
- XYX Planet Partner
- General Discussion
- DPAB Operations
- Off Topic

It is the prerogative of MindArk, along with Planet Partners to be involved with the moderation responsibilities of the DPAB or not. Generally, it would be preferred that forum moderation be left to DPAB elected Administrators and for those Administrators to be held accountable if responsible moderation is not maintained. If a mature and constructive environment is not maintained, an Administrator can lose that privilege, in which case a new Administrator would have to be elected.

**An important objective will be to include the in-game Voting Booths to conduct DPAB elections of all kinds.

DPAB Ethics & Rules
In order for a member or leader to maintain their membership and status in the DPAB, they must adhere to the following:
1. Do not ever steal, scam, or exploit
2. Never gain any special form of compensation, income, benefit, or opportunity from any player or any special interest group related to the Entropia Universe because of your elected position in the DPAB.
3. Always be respectful to other DPAB members
4. Personal disputes aside, always be respectful to other EU participants, especially while they are interacting with the DPAB in any capacity


Vote Of Distrust
If for any reason a DPAB member, or even its leader, is acting in a way that is not consistent with the rules, ethics, or public trust, then a "vote of distrust" could be initiated by either another DPAB member, or the EU community itself. Through a vote of distrust, a person would lose their place in the DPAB.

It shall be known to all individuals who seek or accept a position within the DPAB, they will be entering into the “public eye” and as a result their actions and conduct will be scrutinized and can be judged by the EU population.

**MindArk and Planet Partners reserve the right to remove a Member, Administrator, or anyone else from the DPAB at any time, with or without reason.

Posting Procedures
If a member wants to raise an issue then they can raise it simply by making a thread. If other members are interested they can post their opinion, or their thoughts on the subject and a discussion would naturally start. If MA, FPC, or Planet Partner employees want to weigh in on the subject, naturally they would.

If there is a member of the EU population who is not on the advisory board who wants the board to review something, all they would have to do is convince any 1 member of the board to take up the issue.

MindArk, First Planet Company, and Planet Partners are strongly encouraged to present ideas as "what if" scenarios to the DPAB member body for discussion.

Operational Modifications
The DPAB is a self governing body. In the event a member would like to see a new feature of the DPAB, or remove an old feature, a vote by DPAB members would be held and would to determine if such a change would be enacted. Some things would naturally require MA, FPC, or PP approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Assuming that this will be implemented, the following are the steps to get there.

1. Develop detailed framework, structure, rules, and operational policy
2. Obtain the support of the player base & MA/FPC

Once those big steps are done then we can move into the process of actually creating it, which brings up a big question.

That is, what would my involvement be at that point? Would HardWrath be the leader?

The answer is that I would have to enter the DPAB just like anyone else. Once elected to the DPAB by the community, if I were to seek an Administrator role I would have to obtain it the same way as anyone else which would be to get elected as Administrator by the DPAB members.

After not originally wanting to seek a leadership role in the DPAB, if I am elected into the DPAB, it is now my intention to seek an Administrator role for the purpose of making sure things get off to a good start. Like anyone else, I would not be able to serve as an Administrator for more than 6 months.
---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Zeke Sirrus]

No offence Star but THIS is the way the idea should have been put forward. I like your interpretation here Hardwrath.

 

[Shadowsong]

Excellent draft constitution for a player organisation HW. Pretty extensive framework, and a large number of bases pre-covered. I agree, this is how Star should be tackling the question. I look forward to seeing his response in this thread.

 

[DeeDee]

Very good suggestion!

 

[Hyper]

2nd Q: What kinds of checks and balances do we need to ensure fair play?

Complete transparency in regards to the proposals which are forwarded to FPC!


Even the knowledge that an idea or problematic area could be considered is power incarnate. In an economy such as Entropia the knowledge that something might become useful could mean immense profits.

For example, take MindForce. If there was even a hint that a skill might become more useful, or that a new chip will come out, or become more usefull could cause people to buy those chips en masse and then sell them to the general populace at several times the original price. That, I believe constitutes an unfair advantage.


PS: I believe this topic to be a bit more sound, since it goes from dealing with specific topics (this bug, that bug), to the more general guidelines for FPC designers.

PPS: Remember, designers can never do exactly what you proposed, in doing so they are actually violating copyrights

PPPS: I still don't like the membership structure of the "board". Why does one have to be a freelancer for more than x days? Why does a society have to exist for more than a year? Why would the council need a chairman? (aka... why do you need princeps inter pares).

 

[HardWrath]

I believe that if something like this is going to be a success then the player base itself needs to be involved with forming it.

If the player base fails to create their own system then I fear for the worst. Marco is the CEO of FPC and Marco has always envisioned something similar to this. Since he is the CEO, if he wants something then he probably is going to get it one way or another. Marco is a smart guy and he has a lot of good ideas however NO ONE can create something like this better then the collective player base can.

So, our choice is that we can either make it ourselves or we can leave it to MA|FPC to create.

Think about it...

 

[Beki]

I'm sorry but dress it up how you like, call it a committee/government/advisory board or whatever it will not offer the same direct contact that an individual can have with support.

So far it has been touted as a fast cure for the auction bug, a private support case, EU future development and world hunger! (OK i made one of those up )

How you can suggest that it is better that someone would use a committee to sort out changing their basic account details just boggles the mind { please send your password and a single 1 time code from your GC reader so that we have the information needed to get support on the case right away} (I'm not claiming you would btw)

The language you are using for this is almost identical to the double-speak touted by politicians when they are sliding something past the electorate that would cause them to spit coffee should they realise what the hell it will actually do when in place.

As things stand I am fairly represented in EU. If I have a problem I contact support and they deal with me in accordance to the EULA and terms of use. The one thing i don't need is a filter inbetween me and MA who may misunderstand or misrepresent my position or problem and then get completely the wrong response from MA/FPC: at least if I am in contact I can ping it straight back at them clarifying my issue.

You say that MA will not control, but be expected to take part, but why would MA agree to talk to one group of players representing a small part of the playerbase when they have stated that "no-one ever gets any different treatment, never have done, never will."

Fine if you can say to them "this issue has been raised by the following X number of players whose names are listed below... what can you say to these people? " But I'm sorry a committee sitting sorting through the numerous issues deciding on what gets raised and what doesn't is not acceptable.

I also see that you would have a discipline impeachment board.... what possible sanction could they have if they suspect that the person placing the questions with MA/FPC had changed the slant of a suggestion/question for their own benefit. I'll save you time on that, the answer, I suspect, is nothing as you would basically have to get MA to release the details of a support case to the general public.

How much time would you expect to have to devote to this committee? Have you tried to have a brief meeting with around 40 people all having input into the discussion and for potentially hundreds of items per meeting? Hell i've sat in formally minuted meetings with 9 or 10 people and less than a dozen items on the agenda and been there for an hour or more to reach a satisfactory conclusion. You could sit for a week and not get a first draft of a set of questions to put to MA.

I cannot see how you can think that around 14% support (of a rough poll of 250 people) is enough of a reason to plow ahead with a poorly concieved talking shop. Why can you not admit that you are clearly in the minority and trying to push ahead with something that is just plainly not wanted?

If you want to send in group support cases for a bunch of friends who all feel the same way then fill your boots, but don't claim to be speaking for anyone who hasn't explicity signed up for each individual message.

 

[Brooklyn]

all of that and without total tranparency = disaster...

 

[HardWrath]

Some good questions and points in here, ill try to touch on them individually to avoid confusion.

Complete transparency in regards to the proposals which are forwarded to FPC!

I agree, however there would have to be a private forum for us to all talk and have a free exchange of dialogue. MindArk has already demonstrated that they are not going to involve the player base via existing open communication platforms. There is no reason to believe they would change their policy.

The bottom line is that every time MA gets involved with a controversial subject or a debate, people start flinging shit and throwing rocks at them. I’m surprised MA even still reads the forums.

The solution to this is two fold

1. The spokespeople who will essentially be reporters, reporting on anything of substance as soon as it occurs.
2. The watchdogs. These guys will be an unrelenting thorn in the side if standards, ethics, and rules aren’t being upheld or the advisory board is not being open enough with the public

Even the knowledge that an idea or problematic area could be considered is power incarnate. In an economy such as Entropia the knowledge that something might become useful could mean immense profits.

For example, take MindForce. If there was even a hint that a skill might become more useful, or that a new chip will come out, or become more usefull could cause people to buy those chips en masse and then sell them to the general populace at several times the original price. That, I believe constitutes an unfair advantage.

Well again, the spokespeople and watchdogs would ensure that the Advisory Board isn’t a lock box of information. Whatever is going on in the advisory board would be revealed almost in real time by those two groups and this would be desirable because in the public forum a separate debate on the topic between EU players would be happening while in the Advisory Board we are exchanging ideas with MindArk. Perhaps MindArk would be inspired to even post directly in the open forum.

PS: I believe this topic to be a bit more sound, since it goes from dealing with specific topics (this bug, that bug), to the more general guidelines for FPC designers.

PPS: Remember, designers can never do exactly what you proposed, in doing so they are actually violating copyrights

There wouldn’t be much point in going tit-for-tat back and forth on every bug out there. Most of them MA knows about and if they have not fixed it, usually there is a reason. Regarding the discussion of bugs specifically, the Advisory Board might in some cases be able to find out the details of why a bug has not been fixed, and we could ensure that MindArk understands why fixing that bug is important to people.

PPPS: I still don't like the membership structure of the "board". Why does one have to be a freelancer for more than x days? Why does a society have to exist for more than a year? Why would the council need a chairman? (aka... why do you need princeps inter pares).

Almost nothing has to be anything and almost all of it is open for debate.

Here is my logic on the ones that you mentioned:

Why does one have to be a freelancer for more than x days?
This would help prevent people from dropping out of their society just before election starts and then joining their society right after it ends. Imagine if one society managed to get 10 of their members elected through that little loophole? Thus, if a person is going to be elected as a freelancer then they must be a legitimate freelancer. On that note, should we include a rule that an elected freelancer has remain as a freelancer throughout their elected period? After all, there are freelancers that don’t have a society simply because of circumstance and there are freelancers who will never, ever join any society. It is these people who represent the epitome of freelancing that should be elected to represent freelancers.

Why does a society have to exist for more than a year?
This actually serves many functions
-Prevents people from forming societies that revolve exclusively around getting members elected.
- It prevents abuse of a loop hole that would otherwise exist in this rule. It ensures that people don’t create a society one day and then the next day appoint themselves, a spouse, or a friend/relative through the society entitlement rule.
- It helps to ensure that the people who come into the DPAB through society entitlement are experienced, mature, and honest people.
- It helps fortify the importance of maintaining long standing active societies. Societies are EU "families" and they are the single most important thing when it comes to EU member retention and long term success.


Why would the council need a chairman?
Well any organization of people needs leadership, otherwise it would not be an organization, and descend into chaos during difficult times. The leader of the organization would essentially be there to ensure that operational policies, rules, ethics, and standards of DPAB members are upheld and enforced.

Imagine the scenario where a group of several members was just in there to harass and fight with MindArk. Let’s say they are being abusive or making threats towards MA. In that kind of environment MA would withdraw in protest which would cripple the whole organization. Another example: In the environment where one group of members is at odds with another group of members for whatever reason, the leader might have to step in and mediate. As a result, it will at some point need someone to be there who can "put the hammer down" and maintain order. If it came down to it, a leader might have to remove a member if they were continuously out of line, or guilty of something that would disqualify them from being a member.

A leader of such an organization would be a keeper of the peace as well as function as a rule enforcer.

 

[Darkaner]

Operational Structure-
During the initial 6-month trial, the DPAB will operate using two forums which are both part of the Entropia Forum. One forum will be a dedicated private forum for the DPAB and MindArk to communicate. The other will be a dedicated public forum for open communication with the EU player base. After that, the DPAB will examine the possibility of moving to an exclusively dedicated forum that has both a private and public section.

This is where it all goes wrong (I know you don't agree...).

1. EntropiaForum should not be involved at all. EF is not a neutral party and it has silly rules that makes it impossible to speak freely. If an organization like this wants to gain any trust within a larger part of the community, discussions need to be held at neutral grounds.

2. No secrets. All communication between the organization and MA has to be open to the public. I strongly dislike the idea of a group of EF members speaking to MA behind closed doors about the development of EU.

 

[Sundance1963]

i think hyper has a point in the transparency thing, that bring up a question about if ma emploied or their elected avas should be in this board, think its better only have playervoted avas on the board, that can together discuss what matters should be adreesed to ma, that way its easy to publice the matters that will be discuss on public forum before meeting w ma and direct after make a transcrip of the meeting and also publice that, that way noone get any chance of noing things bfore others.

To the q of elections and size of the group, i think its best to have a quite small group, but large enough to cater players from different areas, like some new ( like lvl 20 or lower) some mediumplayers, and some high skilled. also their shoul preferibly be some from different professions. Lats say 3 in each skillcategori from each profession, that means 27 people. i dont think its necceserry to have a certain nr from soccies and certain not in soc. I highly speake against the idea that the chairman should be able to vote people, not even 1, in by his own mean since that could lead to that his own personal questions get to much bias.

The chairmans work should be to get all the others to work togther and if the board cant agree hold a wote, where his wote will be the ruling in case of equal nr.

just a few thoughts i came up with on short notice. Sundance

 

[HardWrath]

More good points, again I’ll try to address them individually to avoid confusion.

I'm sorry but dress it up how you like, call it a committee/government/advisory board or whatever it will not offer the same direct contact that an individual can have with support.

Not all things are a matter for support to deal with. Generally when you contact support, they only reply with a copy-n-paste message that sometimes does not even apply to what you are talking about.

No one here is looking to replace the support department. It’s not possible. What we are trying to do is create another medium of exchange between MindArk and the EU player base.

What I envision is an environment where the guides, Marco, David, and others from MA|FPC are involved with discussion about what ever topic comes up.

There are spectacular ideas that have been submitted to MindArk by the EU player base over the years and no one among us has any idea whether or not MindArk has read the ideas, much less forwarded them onto the right people in MA.

So far it has been touted as a fast cure for the auction bug, a private support case, EU future development and world hunger! (OK i made one of those up )

No, none of that. It would be for the purpose of involving MindArk with the player base. Right now we pretty much get the cold shoulder or at the most we get a slight hint as to what MindArk has planned. Right now the communication with this kind of thing is almost non-existent.

How you can suggest that it is better that someone would use a committee to sort out changing their basic account details just boggles the mind { please send your password and a single 1 time code from your GC reader so that we have the information needed to get support on the case right away} (I'm not claiming you would btw)

Here is the specific thread that Beki is talking about, is a great example of a very uncommon predicament.

https://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/forums/general-discussion/158118-my-struggle-mindark-support.html

In that specific incident the person claims to have gotten incorrect information from MA support over a series of replies to the support case. MindArk then closed the support case which prompted him to elevate the case via email to Lina Larsson who is higher up in MA|FPC. He then waited for weeks and weeks before getting a reply. On top of that, during the time he was waiting, he gave up and went ahead and followed the incorrect instructions of support which ended up costing him probably a couple thousand PED in total.

In this specific case, he could have made a thread in the DPAB open forum asking for advice. Now don’t forget, this organization will have a player from each society that is older than 1 year, also it will have various elected members. As a result, if someone posted a question, certainly someone who is part of the advisory board would have the answer or they would know someone who does.

If that specific question had been posted, I would have known the answer right away because I know a couple of people who have faced a similar situation in the past. Thus, I could have saved him a lot of time, money, and hassle.

If the claims and allegations are true, now MA support has a big mess along with a very pissed off player on their hands. If it really happened as he describes then it all could have been avoided.

The language you are using for this is almost identical to the double-speak touted by politicians when they are sliding something past the electorate that would cause them to spit coffee should they realise what the hell it will actually do when in place.

I’m afraid you are mistaking. I’m not trying to slip anything by anyone, you may have posted on the wrong thread.

Since the purpose of this thread is to debate the framework and details of such an organization with the EU player base, its self evident that nothing in this thread is trying to be slipped by anyone.

Please raise that issue with the person gathering nominations.

As things stand I am fairly represented in EU. If I have a problem I contact support and they deal with me in accordance to the EULA and terms of use. The one thing i don't need is a filter inbetween me and MA who may misunderstand or misrepresent my position or problem and then get completely the wrong response from MA/FPC: at least if I am in contact I can ping it straight back at them clarifying my issue.

No one in this thread is attempting to come between individual players and existing (or future) communications methods between them and MA|FPC / Support, or whatever.

You say that MA will not control, but be expected to take part, but why would MA agree to talk to one group of players representing a small part of the playerbase when they have stated that "no-one ever gets any different treatment, never have done, never will."

Well to start with, because the CEO of FPC (Marco) for years has wanted an organization of at least similar nature to what is being talked about across the various threads currently.

Second, it would be a representation of virtually all EU players since all EU players would have a vote come election time.

Third, we already know the extent to which MA|FPC will communicate with us via the existing mediums. Every hint of information that we currently have suggests that MA would be in support of this, or at least they would not have a reason to be against it.

Fine if you can say to them "this issue has been raised by the following X number of players whose names are listed below... what can you say to these people? " But I'm sorry a committee sitting sorting through the numerous issues deciding on what gets raised and what doesn't is not acceptable.

Note To Self: Include the below in the rules on next OP edit (DONE)

Well the idea of a committee sitting there deciding what will be talked about and what wont is absurd. If a member wants to raise an issue then they can raise it simply by making a thread. If other members are interested they can post their opinion, or their thoughts on the subject and a discussion would naturally start. If MA|FPC employees wanted to weigh in on the subject they could.

If there is a member of the EU population who is not on the advisory board who wants the board to review something, all they would have to do is convince any 1 member of the board to take up the issue.

I also see that you would have a discipline impeachment board.... what possible sanction could they have if they suspect that the person placing the questions with MA/FPC had changed the slant of a suggestion/question for their own benefit. I'll save you time on that, the answer, I suspect, is nothing as you would basically have to get MA to release the details of a support case to the general public.

Well generally the EU participants would submit issues to the advisory board via the forum where all could see what they post. Furthermore, the cases where someone would submit a support case to the advisory board would be a scenario of us simply advising them. There wouldn’t be a point in entertaining a debate over someone's support case since the advisory board would not be capable of overruling MindArk support. A person would only submit things of that nature if they are looking for advice. For example if someone gets scammed, they could come to the advisory board and seek advice from a member who wants to help and who understands MindArk's policies surrounding their issue.

I understand the spirit of your post, although perhaps a bad example, I’ll still address it. You are essentially asking what would be the consequence for a member who distorts information for their own personal gain. The answer to that question is that they would be ejected from the advisory board, would not be eligible to ever be a part of it again (through any means) and a special EU election could be held to fill their seat.

How much time would you expect to have to devote to this committee? Have you tried to have a brief meeting with around 40 people all having input into the discussion and for potentially hundreds of items per meeting? Hell i've sat in formally minuted meetings with 9 or 10 people and less than a dozen items on the agenda and been there for an hour or more to reach a satisfactory conclusion. You could sit for a week and not get a first draft of a set of questions to put to MA.

Well first of all, we would be discussing these things via forum, not live, in game, via telephone, or in person. Because of geography, time zones, financial restrictions, etc it would not be possible to have all inclusive IRL meetings or telephone meetings of any kind. Everything would have to be conducted via forum where members and MA|FPC can post at their convenience.

I have considered the time needed and I fully understand exactly how much time will be required on my part to develop and establish something like this. I would also like to remind you that I have already created larger and more complex organizations then this in the EU. It has already been implied in other threads that if there is anyone who can build this out in the correct fashion, it’s me.

I cannot see how you can think that around 14% support (of a rough poll of 250 people) is enough of a reason to plow ahead with a poorly concieved talking shop. Why can you not admit that you are clearly in the minority and trying to push ahead with something that is just plainly not wanted?

Well for a few reasons

1. I didn’t create the poll
2. The poll wasn’t about what we are talking about here
3. The poll itself was started in a premature state where the details of that other thread were (and are) still being discussed
4. Everyone was still (and still is) in a state of shock from seeing the word "Government" and hearing talk about role playing as a government. Make no mistake, I am not talking about role playing anything here. I’m talking about a practical relevant organization that creates an open dialog between MA|FPC and the EU player base as a whole... which we don’t currently have.
5. The poll itself is slightly biased, furthermore the original version of the post for the poll was very biased.
6. The EU player base has not had an opportunity to be part of the planning and development of the organization. Think about it, if we want MA and the player base to exchange more communication about things, then from the start of the organization, we need the input of those same people. We (all of us) Need to have input on this before it can be voted in fairly.

If you want to send in group support cases for a bunch of friends who all feel the same way then fill your boots, but don't claim to be speaking for anyone who hasn't explicity signed up for each individual message.

This isn’t about sending in support cases and piddling around with little things. It’s about opening dialog between MA|FPC and the EU player base as a whole and discussing bigger picture things that involve the short-term and long-term strategy of Calypso.

Among other stuff, think about game features, story line development, and other things of that nature

 

[Lee]

I have read through the multitude of threads on this and similar subjects, and while I understand those making these proposals are genuinely trying to think of something that will work as a conduit between players and game company, I personally can't support any of the ideas offered so far. There are many reasons I feel this way, but the most prominent one at the moment is that we are entering (actually have already entered) a different 'reality' than the days of Project Entropia and Entropia Universe being one company, one planet, one 'game'. So, how can one 'committee' 'government' or even 'tea party' possibly exist or represent the entirety of the player base in the new Entropia 'Universe'?

We would need one for the platform company, MindArk, to offer feedback on the overall platform (maybe even a customer group as well for the upcoming Mind Bank). Then the populations of each planet or 'game' within the system would need it's own 'group', one for the current 'game' named 'Calypso' and it's company FPC (First Planet Company), one for 'Next Island', one for 'Rocktropia', one or more for CRD (China Recreative Dreamland) planets, one or more for the Hollywood planets from SEE Virtual Tours, one for the CK (Creative Kingdom) planet, etc etc etc. These and any other future planet partners will not have the exact same participant populations, even though no doubt many of us will travel to try out some of those places, each individual game/company/planet will in the end have it's own unique population and issues.

So, assuming all this talk of governments and committees is taking this into account, then it must be suggested only for the current FPC 'game' Calypso, that it is being proposed. Even in that case, I personally feel it is a bit like trying to close the barn door long after the horses have bolted away. A decent focus group and or communication channels with the player base is something that should already have been in place a long time ago, but was not deemed important enough to do anything about other than then basic support department and occasional interaction by employees on a fan forum (the earlier efforts at a company forum and IRC group were abandoned instead of developed as they should have been, and the Entropia Gateway site is little more than a press release site). If FPC/Marco feels it is important to have such, they will set it up, as there a multitude of ways to do this, and players can then participate accordingly, without any concern of favoritism or undue influence from a select few.

The people in the company are being paid to do a job, we are not, we are here to play a game and/or participate in a virtual universe. If the company feels good communication and feedback from the community is important, they will hire someone or a whole department to see that this happens. Clearly the community will be ready and willing to work with them when/if that happens, and personally the day I see this development is the day I will take MA and or FPC seriously as a professional company. In the meantime, no thanks to a select group, chosen by a popular vote of any kind, to represent me or my support issues or my account or even my 'wishlist' regarding game play and bugs etc. As others have said, I (and all of us) have email addresses, websites and even phone numbers if needed to address my concerns to MA and or FPC, and I can speak for myself if I feel it is important to do so.

 

[Mega]

Whatever happens, government or advisory board, Mindark will remain the gardeners and the players will still be the mushrooms.


And if you dont know the mushroom joke .... google it!

 

[HardWrath]

Again, more great points. Don’t hesitate with this stuff guys, keep it coming. I didn’t create this thread in hopes of everyone agreeing with me and I don’t live in a glass house. My view on it is if an idea like this cannot stand up to scrutiny then it’s not worth the pixels it consumes on your monitor.

This is where it all goes wrong (I know you don't agree...).

1. EntropiaForum should not be involved at all. EF is not a neutral party and it has silly rules that makes it impossible to speak freely. If an organization like this wants to gain any trust within a larger part of the community, discussions need to be held at neutral grounds.

There is no such thing as a neutral party. Someone somewhere would have to host the forum. I agree, the EF is not ideal however for the purpose of the initial 6-month tests, the EF would suffice.

The NBK has 4 private society forums on the EF which are self moderated, just like this would be. If the EF policies can support and are compatible with the largest and most active set of private soceity forums in the Entropia Universe, then I am certain that they will do just fine for the advisory board.

Right now, at this moment, the NBK forums private forums have a collective total of 38,345 posts and 3144 total unique threads.

All of that aside, Neomaven (711) owns the URL www.EntropiaCouncil.com and it currently is not being used. There is a chance that after our initial 6-month test, he would be willing to not only let us use that URL, but also host the site on his servers without charge. A few weeks ago, he responded to a question about the URL and this is what he said.

I have many entropia[keyword].com domains that are redirected to EntropiaForum.com.

Most of these domains were registered with an eye towards future potential development, as has been done with EntropiaRadio.com, EntropiaShopping.com, Entropians.com and EntropiaTracker.com (hosted on the same server as EntropiaRadio, EntropiaTracker.com domain owned by me. I offered to let starfinder use it when the service was launched).

EntropiaCouncil.com is a bit different, as I registered this domain (and a few others related) on behalf of MindBuster, who had an idea a while back for some sort of player council.

Rather than leave such domains dormant while development is planned and implemented, I simply forward many of them to EntropiaForum.com.

I would suggest that toward the end if the initial 6-month trial, the advisory board enters into a state where its focus is on self analysis and future plans. It would be mandatory that a conversation like that also be held with the general public so everyone could have their say on it.

Remember guys... as long this thing is ours to control, then it will be us who gets to craft how it will work, not MA, not the General of a top-10 soc... Us.

We the people!

2. No secrets. All communication between the organization and MA has to be open to the public. I strongly dislike the idea of a group of EF members speaking to MA behind closed doors about the development of EU. [/QUOTE]

Ok, here is how I envision how it would operate. Lets use the Atrox Egg as an example

A DPAB member creates a thread and wants to know what is going on with the Atrox Egg. Immediately a Spokesperson or watchdog makes a post in the open public part of the forum saying that a conversation has started about the Atrox Egg. Right away, the egg ideas and debate would begin to roar in the public forum. Meanwhile in the private Board Member section we are talking about it. Anytime a board member sees any point on the open forum (anywhere) that they like about that topic they could just quote the post and put it in a reply on the thread and it could be discussed there as well. Meanwhile the spokespeople and watchdogs are updating the thread in the open forum with any useful information. Then maybe, just maybe MA would come along and post a hint toward what they are planning. From there we could try and dissect and interpret that, all while giving MA useful ideas and letting them see how interested we are in that component of the story line of Calypso. Perhaps then, because CE2 would be out of the way, MindArk could post definitive information regarding the Atrox egg, and without missing a beat the Spokespeople and watchdogs quote the post along with any relevant info and post it in the open section of the forum for all to see.

Now take that scenario and evolve it into the end vision of the DPAB, that would be where MindArk asks us what we want to see happen with the Atrox Egg. While there is a free flow of information between the public and private forum sections, MindArk is reviewing material and ideas submitted, and forming the final ideas for the outcome of it.

The people who you will want to elect as watch dogs are going to be people who are:

- Very skeptical of this whole idea
- Very active on the forums for an extended period of time

Start paying attention to the threads because the people who campaign the hardest and most intelligently against this idea will be the perfect candidates for elected "DPAB Watchdogs"

Freedom and Democracy are great

 

[Legion]

@hardwrath, what does a society have to do with this? societies should have nothign to do with it, ie if your in a soc or not should not matter. Persons should be selected on their own merit and not by being in a society or not.

And also it seems you want it to be quite big? to me it seems you want between 30-60 ppl atleast. IN my eyes this is WAY to much. Cut it down to maybe 10-max20 ppl or it wont function. As i see it this board should work just as a regular board as i wrote in the other thread and making it to big will make it not function and also if (which i hope) it goes so far as to have regular meetings with ma.. AT their office i mean now or somewhere else.. how would 30-60 ppl get accomodated AND be able to voice their concerns?

You know.. to many chef's make a lousy soup...

Also regular meetings should be held over irc so that it can be logged in a good fashion, should also have it's own website and forum with full transparency etc etc.

 

[Ateush]

I hope that MA reads all those posts about governments, boards etc. and starts their own initiative to communicate with community using ingame instruments (like voting machines).

 

[Brooklyn]

I am only hoping that MA reads all those posts about governments, boards etc. and starts their own initiative to communicate with community using ingame instruments (like voting machines).

I totally agree....​

​

I want everything to be in game and have absolutely nothing to do with the forum...

Why not just create a society... in which anyone can join... which would automatically mean that you would have to give up society memberships to participate... also speaking as a society you won't be giving the impression that you are speaking for anyone but yourselves...

 

[HardWrath]

More good stuff

I have to say that I am really excited and inspired to see a healthy debate of this kind happening on the Entropia Forum. There was a time before 711 owned the EF where debate of this kind would not have been possible. It would have been a total flame fest with trolls circling the wagon looking for fresh meat.

EU has some very intelligent people and we often are dismissive of them simply because they don’t agree with what we are saying. I’m impressed to see this debate happening at this level.

I think overall, 711 has done a great job here with the EF

I have read through the multitude of threads on this and similar subjects, and while I understand those making these proposals are genuinely trying to think of something that will work as a conduit between players and game company, I personally can't support any of the ideas offered so far. There are many reasons I feel this way, but the most prominent one at the moment is that we are entering (actually have already entered) a different 'reality' than the days of Project Entropia and Entropia Universe being one company, one planet, one 'game'. So, how can one 'committee' 'government' or even 'tea party' possibly exist or represent the entirety of the player base in the new Entropia 'Universe'?

Well that’s also why right now is the correct and also the most important time to do this. The EU is in a state of flux, if we leave it to MA to not involve us at all, like they do now, then it will just result in more players getting upset with EU and quitting which in turn takes a ding out of the EU economy every time someone withdraws.

To understand this, first we have to embark on a paradigm shift which means a totally different way of thinking, a totally different vantage point, view point, or perspective.


Let’s erase the idea from our minds of creating anything that is "representative" of the EU player base. Think about it, what exactly do we need representation for? The answer is: an insignificant amount of things.

Now that we have the idea of a "Government" or anything similar out of our heads, understand that what I am trying to create is something that would allow the EU player base to be directly involved with the development of many facets of EU.

We already know that what we have now does not include us in the development of EU. Sure, MindArk reads our ideas however that doesn’t make us involved in the process. Right now we are just throwing ideas on the wall in hopes that some of them stick. There is no dialog, there is no debate, and there is an extremely low amount of information provided.

Now let’s bring the shock word "representation" back into the equation. Freelancers, society members, soc leaders, hunters, miners, crafters, stylists, pilots, etc all should have a way to have their voice heard in the development of Calypso. If they can not directly be in the Board, then they need to at least have direct and convenient access to those that are.

We would need one for the platform company, MindArk, to offer feedback on the overall platform (maybe even a customer group as well for the upcoming Mind Bank). Then the populations of each planet or 'game' within the system would need it's own 'group', one for the current 'game' named 'Calypso' and it's company FPC (First Planet Company), one for 'Next Island', one for 'Rocktropia', one or more for CRD (China Recreative Dreamland) planets, one or more for the Hollywood planets from SEE Virtual Tours, one for the CK (Creative Kingdom) planet, etc etc etc. These and any other future planet partners will not have the exact same participant populations, even though no doubt many of us will travel to try out some of those places, each individual game/company/planet will in the end have it's own unique population and issues.

I actually thought of this as I was typing it all out in the original post. Initially, it would have to be for Calypso as you assumed in the post below. If we can’t make it work for Calypso, then it won’t work anywhere in EU. That’s a fact I think we can all agree on. Once we get it up and rolling, we could expand it to cover anything and everything that we could have a dialog with MA|FPC on.

So, assuming all this talk of governments and committees is taking this into account, then it must be suggested only for the current FPC 'game' Calypso, that it is being proposed. Even in that case, I personally feel it is a bit like trying to close the barn door long after the horses have bolted away. A decent focus group and or communication channels with the player base is something that should already have been in place a long time ago, but was not deemed important enough to do anything about other than then basic support department and occasional interaction by employees on a fan forum (the earlier efforts at a company forum and IRC group were abandoned instead of developed as they should have been, and the Entropia Gateway site is little more than a press release site). If FPC/Marco feels it is important to have such, they will set it up, as there a multitude of ways to do this, and players can then participate accordingly, without any concern of favoritism or undue influence from a select few.

Well MA once had an official forum and they also once solicited the players for advice, suggestions, opinions, and general feedback. Over the years each communication venue has turned into a snake pit circled by forum trolls and soon nothing constructive could even be discussed. As a result, MindArk pulled back from the EU community and has monitored the fan sites.

The people in the company are being paid to do a job, we are not, we are here to play a game and/or participate in a virtual universe. If the company feels good communication and feedback from the community is important, they will hire someone or a whole department to see that this happens. Clearly the community will be ready and willing to work with them when/if that happens, and personally the day I see this development is the day I will take MA and or FPC seriously as a professional company. In the meantime, no thanks to a select group, chosen by a popular vote of any kind, to represent me or my support issues or my account or even my 'wishlist' regarding game play and bugs etc. As others have said, I (and all of us) have email addresses, websites and even phone numbers if needed to address my concerns to MA and or FPC, and I can speak for myself if I feel it is important to do so.

Here is the problem though. Marco wants to create an EU Government of sorts, or something similar to it that would involve the EU player base with various things. He has even submitted ideas that indicate there could be an EU wide tax on all players to give the elected person a budget to work with. Here is a recent post of his on that topic:

Me, FPC, whatever, liked the alliance as a starting point of a political movement, a step to a more "civilized" community. But I am not sure that the Landgrab event, as intended to be a PvP battle match, is the right venue. From my point of view we however need to introduce other contest into Calypso where politics have a vital role to play and make this into an exciting gameplay element as well. Be it elections, be it that the continents are differentiated into states where avatars can become governors of the states, etc. The potential is there.

Maybe add a state-wide tax that goes to the governors budget? ,-)

Do you really want to be taxed so some asshole can run around with your PED and play Governor? Do you really want to be governed?

That is what will happen if we don’t make this thing ourselves.

Imagine if we could say to FPC: relax with this topic because we got it under control. No need to create a government. No need for a tax, no need to create something that will piss off most of the EU player base. Instead you can focus on important things because we have already created what the EU wants and what will work best for the long term success, enjoyment, and freedom of the Entropia Universe. All you have to do is go to User CP on the EF, on the left click on Group Memberships and submit a request to join the Group called DPAB.

The day we are taxed in the EU to fund some clown masquerading as Governor will be the day I probably leave EU.

 

[Wolverine Queen]

I'm sorry but dress it up how you like, call it a committee/government/advisory board or whatever it will not offer the same direct contact that an individual can have with support.

I completely disagree! When you send support case with genious suggestion, the support guy who has NOTHING to do with game developement, pastes the usual "will be forwarded to developement etc" thingie, and puts it on a pile which is never read.

What this is all about, selected group of people will gather ideas and refine them, then forward them directly to the part of MA|FPC that actually makes decisions, and the idea will be refined from both players and Mindark.

I can see your point, but when you think about this is better.

 

[Brooklyn]

I completely disagree! When you send support case with genious suggestion, the support guy who has NOTHING to do with game developement, pastes the usual "will be forwarded to developement etc" thingie, and puts it on a pile which is never read.

and you know that how?

 

[HardWrath]

@hardwrath, what does a society have to do with this? societies should have nothign to do with it, ie if your in a soc or not should not matter. Persons should be selected on their own merit and not by being in a society or not.

Societies impact almost every dynamic in EU which is why in my plan there is the society entitlement policy for societies that are at least 1-year old.

My original draft concept on a different thread didn’t have a provision for X amount of freelancers and society members which raised some concern that those who choose to freelance could find themselves in the scenario where there aren’t any freelancers who are part of the board.

Each society in EU is a totally different experience, different values, different moral standards, different experience levels, different cultures, and different languages. The society you are in can have a tremendous impact on your EU experience.

Societies that are successful enough to hit the 1-year mark would automatically be able to have 1 seat in the board.

And also it seems you want it to be quite big? to me it seems you want between 30-60 ppl atleast. IN my eyes this is WAY to much. Cut it down to maybe 10-max20 ppl or it wont function. As i see it this board should work just as a regular board as i wrote in the other thread and making it to big will make it not function and also if (which i hope) it goes so far as to have regular meetings with ma.. AT their office i mean now or somewhere else.. how would 30-60 ppl get accomodated AND be able to voice their concerns? You know.. to many chef's make a lousy soup...

I would say that the size it should be is reflective of the amount of EU participants.

10-20 total people in a forum would make for a very slow forum that is almost never used. 50-60 people of the 15,000 or so that play EU actively is not a lot at all. Remember, we aren’t trying to create social or political elite here, we are trying to create an environment where MindArk includes us in the development and planning of EU.

If the forum does not have enough members to keep it active with regular posts and new threads then people won’t have the need to check it every day, or every other day. Because they will check it less and less, the advisory board will just go dead and be useless.


If the forum does not have enough members to keep it active with regular posts and new threads then people wont have the need to check it every day, or every other day. Because they will check it less and less, the advisory board will just go dead and be useless.

(sorry everyone, inside soc talk here, feel free to read ofc)
Legion, Look at the NBK Entrepreneurs forum for an example. When we started that, it was active, buzzing, etc. But because only 30-40 people had access to it, slowly the interest in that NBK forum started to die down. Meanwhile the main NBK forum has been blowing up with posts, not only of members from other NBK socs, but also from members of the NBK Entrepreneurs. This point is why we are now talking about opening the NBK E forum to all of the NBK and using it for the purpose of posting sales, commercial, and business related things in it which would reduce the clutter in the main NBK forum.

What I should do is take the time to go through the entire society terminal alphabetically and count exactly how many societies in EU are over 1 year old. Accounting for inactivity, we could come up with a rough number of people who would join through the entitlement policy and when added with the other stuff, would give us a rough number as a total member count.

Honestly, I don’t see a problem with 100 people being a part of the board. There are a lot of smart people in EU m8.

Also regular meetings should be held over irc so that it can be logged in a good fashion, should also have it's own website and forum with full transparency etc etc.

Well in an ideal world yes however not everyone would be able be anywhere all at a certain time for a live chat of any kind simply because of time zone conflicts an IRL priorities or obligations.

 

[Shew]

The day we are taxed in the EU to fund some clown masquerading as Governor will be the day I probably leave EU.

And that is exactly how we act as a group now, and in the future. You vote with your wallet.

Many up to this point since VU 9.0 have done this since MA has been taxing us in different ways and increasing the cost to play beyond acceptable levels.

All I see any advisory board doing is what has already happened in this forum. If someone speaks out against what MA is doing, and the board doesn't agree with it, they label the person with the complaint as a "whiner."

I just see a board as another layer of crap to deal with, sort of a buffer for MA/FPC. They can defer any issues to the advisory board before they will look at it.

There are many long term players that are still in a "wait and see" state to see where MA/FPC is headed.

IF they (MA/FPC) just use the search button themselves they will see the grievences that many already have, there is no need for a board if they just listen to what is already stated. But that is their problem, they don't listen, and why would it be any different with an advisory board?

 

[HardWrath]

and you know that how?

Somoene should send in a support case suggesting an elected EU body that brings both players and MindArk together for the purpose of the planning and development of Calypso in VU10.0 and beyond.

Lets see what kind of reply we get

Would it be mischievous for all of us to do that at the same time?

We could compare answers

 

[Legion]

Societies impact almost every dynamic in EU which is why in my plan there is the society entitlement policy for societies that are at least 1-year old.

My original draft concept on a different thread didn’t have a provision for X amount of freelancers and society members which raised some concern that those who choose to freelance could find themselves in the scenario where there aren’t any freelancers who are part of the board.

Each society in EU is a totally different experience, different values, different moral standards, different experience levels, different cultures, and different languages. The society you are in can have a tremendous impact on your EU experience.

Societies that are successful enough to hit the 1-year mark would automatically be able to have 1 seat in the board.



I would say that the size it should be is reflective of the amount of EU participants.

10-20 total people in a forum would make for a very slow forum that is almost never used. 50-60 people of the 15,000 or so that play EU actively is not a lot at all. Remember, we aren’t trying to create social or political elite here, we are trying to create an environment where MindArk includes us in the development and planning of EU.

If the forum does not have enough members to keep it active with regular posts and new threads then people won’t have the need to check it every day, or every other day. Because they will check it less and less, the advisory board will just go dead and be useless.


If the forum does not have enough members to keep it active with regular posts and new threads then people wont have the need to check it every day, or every other day. Because they will check it less and less, the advisory board will just go dead and be useless.

(sorry everyone, inside soc talk here, feel free to read ofc)
Legion, Look at the NBK Entrepreneurs forum for an example. When we started that, it was active, buzzing, etc. But because only 30-40 people had access to it, slowly the interest in that NBK forum started to die down. Meanwhile the main NBK forum has been blowing up with posts, not only of members from other NBK socs, but also from members of the NBK Entrepreneurs. This point is why we are now talking about opening the NBK E forum to all of the NBK and using it for the purpose of posting sales, commercial, and business related things in it which would reduce the clutter in the main NBK forum.

What I should do is take the time to go through the entire society terminal alphabetically and count exactly how many societies in EU are over 1 year old. Accounting for inactivity, we could come up with a rough number of people who would join through the entitlement policy and when added with the other stuff, would give us a rough number as a total member count.

Honestly, I don’t see a problem with 100 people being a part of the board. There are a lot of smart people in EU m8.




Well in an ideal world yes however not everyone would be able be anywhere all at a certain time for a live chat of any kind simply because of time zone conflicts an IRL priorities or obligations.

Well ofcourse there should be ppl from societies on the board, but it should not be mandatory to be in a soc etc to be on the board, the board should be chosen from how suitable the individual is.

As for the forum, it wont be quiet as a lot of other ppl will be able to post there ie what they want to be taken into consideration for the group etc. So the forum will likely have atleast a few hundred members. But the group itself should preferably be keept small, due to the fact that to many chefs make a bad soup. I've been in many things similar to this and every time that they have been to big no decision can be made in a good or timely manner as to many will have different opinions.

This is ofcourse one of the "bad" things with things like this, not everyone can have their voice heard but with a broad enough board most people should be happy in some way. But as i said if everyone should have their voice heard and debated no conclusion will ever be made.

So make a forum where everyone can voice their concerns but keep the board that actually discuss these matters small ie 10-20 people or it will be an endless debate.

Come to think of it i think the board should be made up of each profession * 3 to make it so there can be no draws when voting or such.

ie
1 chairman
3 miners
3 crafters
3 hunters
3 beutyppl
3 bigger investors
3 Alternates

these positions will also be taken by two people. 1 vice chairman, 1 Secretary will be responsible for taking notes/chatlogs and posting this to the website.

Also to be eligable to vote atleast 11ppl have to attend a meeting, otherwise the voting will have to be postsponed untill the next meeting.

 

[Legion]

Somoene should send in a support case suggesting an elected EU body that brings both players and MindArk together for the purpose of the planning and development of Calypso in VU10.0 and beyond.

Lets see what kind of reply we get

Would it be mischievous for all of us to do that at the same time?

We could compare answers

i can give it to you already

Hi,

Thanks for taking the time to submit your suggestions. As the Support Dept. work with technical support for the Entropia Universe, we cannot unfortunately give you any direct feedback on your suggestions.

As you probably understand we receive a great number of interesting and creative ideas, but it is not possible to implement them all. However, we have forwarded your suggestions to the members of the design team.

Unfortunately we are unable to say whether your suggestions will be implemented now or in the future, but please stay tuned to the News section and Version Update Content Lists on the website.

Thanks for sharing your ideas with us.

Kind regards,
Entropia Universe Support

 

[HardWrath]

All I see any advisory board doing is what has already happened in this forum. If someone speaks out against what MA is doing, and the board doesn't agree with it, they label the person with the complaint as a "whiner."

Note to self: Include below rule in next OP edit (DONE)

What if we included the following rule for DPAB members:

- Always be respectful to other DPAB members along with other EU participants, especially those submitting a concern, complaint, objection, or idea regarding the DPAB, EU, MA|FPC, support, or anything else related.

If I as a DPAB member started making smart ass, derogatory, inflammatory, disrespectful, or similar remarks about someone coming to the DPAB with a concern or whatever, then I would immediately get my ass jumped and flamed by three watchdogs, and potentially could get my DPAB membership stripped away from me depending on number of occurrences, and/or the severity. If I was the leader, I could even be impeached.

With little scenarios like this, all we have to do is make well thought out and proactive rules.

In the NBK, we have 12 rules that govern 8 societies simultaneously. These 12 rules can be used to confront nearly any scenario imaginable. Look at each and think of all the different ways someone could break each one. This rule set allows us to handle every scenario on a case-by-case basis which ensures that we can act in a way that is in the best interest of the society and its members as a whole. A similar rule set would have to be developed and implemented. As time goes by, other rules would have to be created for scenarios that were not thought of.

Here are the NBK rules (as an example)

1.Never beg for money or items.
2.Generally have an optimistic attitude and don't continuously whine or complain
3.Be respectful to society members and Leadership along with other people in the EU.
4.Don't lie, cheat, or steal from anyone in the Entropia Universe.
5.Conduct yourself in a way that will earn respect for you and for the N.B.K. Group
6.Report any misconduct to society leaders A.S.A.P.
7.Don't post internal society related information on an open public forum.
8.Never, ever criticize another NBK member in public.
9.Don't create or spread rumours that could potentially damage the NBK or its members.
10.Don't engage other members in a personal argument in the society chat or in the forums, move the debate to some type of private chat or private message.
11.If you are unable to resolve a dispute, take the issue to a NBK General if you both can no longer coexist.
12.Swearing is allowed in the society chat as long as its not every other word or directed towards another member in a demeaning, hostile, or confrontational way. We have members of all ages, nationalities, races, and both genders. You should be aware of their potential sensitivities but at the same time the NBK is not a kindergarten... Just use good judgment.

Obviously, a lot of this is not applicable to what we are doing here, however its good food for thought when thinking of appropriate rules for the DPAB.

The EU will have a very high expectation of this organization, as a result the Watchdogs will just be drooling, waiting for someone to slip up and do something stupid.

Upon launch, the expectations of the members and standards of the DPAB have to be clear and will have to be set high.

 

[Lavawalker]

Well structure and outlined so far Hardwrath.

A point to Lee.

This advisory board would only relate to the operations of Planet Calypso.
It would not include any other planet on the platform, only our planet.

Anything that has to do with platform mechanics, ie. That which needs to be filtered back through to MindArk will be required to go through FPC.

No participant directly interacts with MindArk PE AB as a company any longer in the context of general day to day participation upon any world within the platform.

All participant problems are handled by the partner companies and anything concerning the platform are filtered back via correspondence between the planet partner company and the platform company (MindArk).

In our case this is:
Participant <---> (FPC AB) <---> MindArk PE AB

There is no longer Participant <---> MindArk PE AB correspondence,
This workflow process no longer exists with the creation of FPC.

Back to Hardwrath,

Transparency will need to be addressed with Marco|FPC as to work out if this system will truely be effective, naturally Marco has already stated the obvious in his PR that a high degree of transparency will be required for him alone to get what he has stated done;

Yet is this going to be the normal level of transparency that all companies who work with fiscal investors into their companies operate at.

Or is it going to be a paranoid, tell you only tib bits here and there when they feel like it.

Naturally the tib bits being what has defiled and in part destroyed the reputation of MindArk over the years, will this be the same again,

ie. Are we just wasting our time with this whole exercise ?

Is the FPC team ready to come out of the bear cave and interact with the world around them in a normal ethical business like manner to restore & maintain confidence over the long term ?

Will the Mind Group of companies, including FPC, MindArk, MindBank allow themselves to be view by the real world investment & financial community as a trusted financial organisation ?

Or remain as they are present day, as an untrusted financial organisation ?

^^ As far as the answers go, I am only interested in:

Participant <---> FPC transparency and that whatever needs to be filtered down from FPC <---> MindArk back to the participant is done in an adequate manner by FPC.

MindArk PE AB has yet to make it to a single recognised investment or financial trust list around the world as a trusted organisation, so MindBank is not of any interest to (myself) other than withdrawl card functionality (which will effect all participants).

They have been flagged on antitrust lists a couple of times in the past, but nothing solid. No blacklisting.

The point of these questions in summary:

What level of confidence are they going to instil into participants over the long term as far as their willingness to spend & invest their hard earned money with FPC/Entropia.

(Also encompassing MindArk/Entropia Universe as a whole/platform)

 

[HardWrath]

Come to think of it i think the board should be made up of each profession * 3 to make it so there can be no draws when voting or such.

ie
1 chairman
3 miners
3 crafters
3 hunters
3 beutyppl
3 bigger investors
3 Alternates

these positions will also be taken by two people. 1 vice chairman, 1 Secretary will be responsible for taking notes/chatlogs and posting this to the website.

Also to be eligable to vote atleast 11ppl have to attend a meeting, otherwise the voting will have to be postsponed untill the next meeting.

I like the idea of creating positions for different types of specific players.

Let me count up the total number of societies that would qualify for the society entitlement thing so we know what kind of numbers we are dealing with here.

First I need to take a break and eat. I have been posting for 12+ hours strait between the different threads. I did not go to sleep last night... been on EF the whole time

I need some help with rule creation. What are scenarios that would cause bad experiences with the DPAB? What rule coule be in place as a result of that scenario?

Rules like the following are great because they can cover so many different scenarios:
Conduct yourself in a way that will earn respect for you and for the DPAB

 

[AlphaGeek]

@hardwrath, what does a society have to do with this? societies should have nothign to do with it, ie if your in a soc or not should not matter. Persons should be selected on their own merit and not by being in a society or not.

My two pec on this jewel. Consider, shred, flame, it's all good:

People that are members of a Soc have already illustrated an interest in being part of a larger community on Calypso. While there are certainly some exceptional freelancers out there (Mindbuster comes to mind with this here forum that HE built!) and some Soc members that merely joined because their one buddy was in it, it's still a pretty good marker that the person is thinking on a community level rather than an individual one.