| Forum Main>>Announcements>> Player committee - You decide what happens in Torn |
Chedburn
ID: 1
Level: 30
Posts: 6394
Score: 11060
|
Thread created on Tue Mar 22, 2011 04:46:19
Last replied to on Tue Mar 22, 2011 04:46:19
|
After attempts of getting the community to set up their own committee, we've decided to take on the task of turning a 'Dictatorship' in to a complete 'Democracy'.
The player committee will be a 24/7 IRC channel and forum existing of 20-30 serious Torn players of a range of levels and play styles. These players will converse with Developers (including me) and other admins on a day to day basis. All major and minor changes which could possibly negatively effect players will go through the player committee before being finalized. I think the current issue with changes is that people misunderstand the information given, or simply jump to conclusions without thinking. One person who doesn't understand the situation, makes a post in the forums - this suddenly turns in to hundreds of people who have jumped the gun, and assume something terrible is happening. Usually creating a lot of fuss over nothing.
Committee members will be well informed and understand exactly what changes are being made, giving them the ability to vote 'Yes' or 'No' and make comments / requests. Changes to the update or compromise requests can then be added until most or all of the votes are ‘Yes’. These members must have the game at heart, and not their own desires. They should see the long term benefits of changes and not just the short term negatives. Inability to explain why they've voted no, or inability to discuss the update with us and other members will see them expelled from the committee.
Perhaps knowing that changes have gone through (and sometimes tested by) a player committee, will ease the minds of some people who think we're going to ruin their gaming experience. The members can then make intelligent posts in the forums updating users, carefully explaining what changes are being made + the reasons for them and correcting people who appear to have the wrong picture.
Many people also don't understand the reasons behind changes and what makes them necessary. These reasons will be provided with statistics to the players committee, so they have input on whether they think it is the right move or not, for the game, and not their personal bank balance.
It will be our job to convince the player committee. They will act as a sort of 'United Nations', the voice of the players. They will decide whether we should completely scrap an idea, or offer a compromise, or if a change is fine and justified. We will respect the player committee, and try to follow its wishes to the best of our ability.
The committee will be more than just voting and discussing changes though. Members will be able to put forward their thoughts on problems in Torn and request changes.
All we want to do is make you happy, sometimes this means changes which benefit new players as without them - we're not going anywhere. Changes to the games economy are also essential every now and then.
We have four main priorities.
a) To make Torn the best game on the web.
b) To keep players happy, for the short term and long term.
c) To have a continuous feed of new players. The larger Torn gets, the faster we progress.
d) To make money. With money we can hire more and more full time employees to work on Torn, pay for servers and advertise.
|
Members of the player committee should always be aware of these priorities.
We will pick the members, based on four main factors.
Game Activity - We can view the players activity, recruiting very active players is important.
IRC Activity - It is important for members to have IRC and be online several hours per day as discussions will be held here.
Forum Activity - Members will need to address and communicate with other players on the Forums. Discussions will also be made on updates in a special hidden forum.
Subscriber status - Having subscriber status reassures us that users have the best intentions and that they want to make decisions for the good of the game - and they're willing to make a sacrifice for it. |
Although these factors are in place, we will be completely unbiased when selecting the members and make sure a whole range of different people are selected.
Rules
Members are not allowed to talk about certain updates and ideas with the public unless authorised or announced to the public by us or until a ‘committee vote' is made public. (We do not want updates or changes made public until they are a real possibility).
Members cannot quote admins or developers directly while speaking to the public unless authorised. (We want the ability to freely speak with the committee without checking every word. Also quotes can be out of context.)
Members must continue activity in the game, IRC and forums to remain part of it. |
If you would like to submit an application to join the player committee, please make a post here.
http://www.torn.com/forums.php?forumID=4&ID=12990899
Thanks.
EDIT:
I've taken the liberty of replying to some individuals. There has been some great feedback, and it seems most people are very excited about the change. We already have 8 pages of applications to read through.
By Filippos [528731]
I don't understand one thing...Why a subscriber has more chances to get i from a non subscriber???
This is stupid... The committee that Ched will make(and not the TOrn players) will have all,or the most of the members sucscribers...
|
By Chit [1380260]
I was sold on this idea until I saw you had to be a subscriber to join the Committee. Why is that a requirement?
|
By Sekhmet [79965]
Need to be a subscriber? Fail. |
I thought this would have been quite simple for people to understand. The request of subscriber status weeds out all of the trolls and people who really don't care about the game. A lot of people are here just to cause a stir and annoy people. They don't care about Torn at all. Having a subscriber status means this person is donating $4.95 per month to the game - A very small fee which anyone who enjoys the game and wishes it to continue would be doing. This is why we've listed the subscriber status as a factor.
Why should a non-donator, who doesn't care about the game enough to donate, be allowed to have an impact in the huge decisions that need to be made?
Subscriber status is a good, standard and simple benchmark for us to use in selecting members for the player committee.
By Ohadik [424017]
I applied... it's about time Chedburn took the idea of a committee seriously... |
We've always been interested in a committee, and even requested users to create their own. Ideally, we'd have very little part of it (to prevent people from complaining and saying that we were biased when picking members). This however was unsuccessful. I will pick the members, while being completely unbiased. selecting intelligent individuals who clearly care about the game. I'll also try to get a whole selection of members, who have both liked and disliked updates in the past.
By _Cynic_ [206537]
People apply and then who chooses who is on the committee? The players or Staff/Ched?
Let me be cynical as usual, if it is the Staff/Ched, then I would not describe this as a players committee, rather a staff chosen list of people they want to talk too and therefore something that can so easily be manipulated.
|
How else would we create it then? We tried getting the public to create one for over a month, but this failed. And providing a voting system would result in a popularity competition.
By Filippos [528731]
do you know what is the funny part?
This
Chedburn:"we've decided to take on the task of turning a 'Dictatorship' in to a complete 'Democracy' "
So this is the complete Democracy... His committee with the subcribers-members
|
I see nothing funny about that.
By Wollongong [12833]
Have one portion of the members be elected by staff, one portion elected by players? Or both portions divided in sub portions, to make sure you get a good representation of the community?
|
Having a single community made up of just players will be more beneficial. People need to understand that they are all actual players, and completely unbiased.
By gintux [622539]
It all sounds good, but at the moment I can see one point that might not be fair to other players.
Since all the committee members will have to vote "yes", it will take a while before coming with a right solution. And nobody in public will know about the new changes coming up, except those committee members, which, to my mind, gives an unfair advantage to those members.
|
Committee members will not be allowed to use the knowledge of coming updates to their advantage. Each user will be checked, and if found to be abusing their power - will be expelled and federal jailed.
By joeykickdoors [1362446]
Just to be honest, I find it funny that anybody would think their views, opinions, or suggestions would change anything in this game. There has been plenty of good suggestions, etc. that have never been implemented, so what would be so different now?
|
Committee members would be able to vote on changes, if there are not enough votes reached, it will not be accepted. Certain suggestions that are made can be very detrimental on other parts of the game. Most of them are not clearly thought out enough to be accepted. Committee members will be able to discuss and hold a vote for certain suggestions, which may result in them being implemented. Many suggestions have in fact been accepted and implemented.
By MadameButterfly [1035358]
Whats to stop committee members pasing info on to their friends over hotmail or MSN where you can't track it?
|
Staff have enough tools in their arsenal to find these people.
By DonnieBrasco [1130241]
put a vote on ever players home page,,,give everyone a chance to have their say....... |
By roadrunner [1358274]
I think the committee idea is dumb. It's nice to have player input, but having 20+ players decide what is good for the other 40,000 of us is just shortsighted. Just because someone is an active player and a donator, doesn't mean they have good ideas.
|
Having 20+ intelligent people in the committee that actually care about the game is much more acceptable. If the vote is left to 40,000 - they vote on what is best for them, not the game. They also won't take in all of the statistics and facts, and make a clear unbiased response.
Having just a hand full of people means I can personally make sure each voter understands the situation and exactly what the change is going to do to the game. I can discuss with, and try convincing these people that the change is a requirement and will benefit the game. I'm sure that most people would have agreed with my decisions in the past, had they been given all of the statistics and facts, had a clear picture, and had the game at heart. We'll see if this is true once the player committee has begun.
By Dilandu [561022]
I think the first one is the clause: "Inability to explain why they've voted no, or inability to discuss the update with us and other members will see them expelled from the committee."
So, basically, we have a comitte where each member can be automatically expelled if the staff judge their views not being beneficial to the game, or not well argumented enough?
|
If the person is not willing to discuss the change, or give a clear reason for why it should not be made, yes - there is no reason to keep them. If you vote no, we expect you to add a real reason. We will have the opportunity to discuss it with you, and try convincing you. If you have valid points as to why you are voting no, the player committee has served its purpose. Also, the staff have no part in the player committee, just admins and developers.
By VanillaGod [485929]
A committee of players hand picked by the staff (Ched) will be nothing more than staff (Ched) flunkies/lackeys/wannabes that will rubber stamp whatever staff (Ched) tells them to and will certainly fail. Any "committee" should be chosen by the players through a fair and open to all players election. |
Most certainly not. It will become a popularity contest. Instead, we will pick a complete selection of people who have both liked and disliked (and sometimes hated) previous updates. I will not be picking people who I think will give in easily, or people who are inclined to suck up. Just intelligent individuals who are open to discussion.
By Anthony [496062]
New!
23/03/11
07:03:30 AM Warning - your Google Checkout donation subscription has been cancelled. Google ID 135213242050364
This is my way of saying to Chedburn that I hate how he is operating Torn, how I hate how he thinks that by Staff electing some form of a Group and call it "Democracy" is going to solve anything. and above all why do Staff Members get the say of who is in or who is out?
|
I find this one absurdly strange, but amusing. They have cancelled their subscription to Torn because he hates how staff are electing the members (which they're not, this has not been said anywhere, I will be). Perhaps he thinks the players should vote in the members, but then this would become a popularity contest which is exactly what users are asking NOT to happen. This is just another example of... 'Simply no winning'. Or 'You can't make everyone happy'. We've gone out of our way a to let users decide exactly what happens in Torn, we've done exactly what people have asked, and we've still somehow made someone angry.
By H00D [232833]
i remember ched saying he was going to speak to faction leaders about the warring system yet nothing was done about that every suggestion was ignored and worse idea was implemented...
you really think he gonna listen to you guys now? the way of the game has always been, ched does what ched wants.
although i do like the new stock market revamp he is implementing and is well over due, hopefully the thresholds get put high for the stocks benefits and majority of the benefits existing will be ended |
I did speak to many faction leaders, no suggestions have been ignored, and the idea which was implemented may be worse in your opinion - but it appears to be hugely successful and popular among the majority of users.
By _Cynic_ [206537]
ched has promised lots in the past and failed to deliver.
Do I believe this will be any different? I wont comment on that.
|
I don't think I've ever gone back on a promise I have made. But then again, I very rarely make promises. The last time I made a promise, was after the February crash of 2007, and I'm fulfilling each one, every day, to the best of my ability.
In this line of work, things are rapidly changing, unexpected results occur, opinions change, and hundreds of things effect overall outcomes. So yes, I expect some things have taken longer than usual. I don't think I've 'failed to deliver' on anything however.
By JakeBlues [1304979]
Truly a sign of how desperate Chedburn has become. He spent the last year getting the game economy under control (in other words, dismantling it piece by piece until his users started leaving and his revenue felt to almost nothing), and now that he sees the bloody disaster he's created, he's hoping the users will figure out where he went wrong and help his get his money stream flowing again.
The truth is, all he has to do is reverse every change he's made in the last 18 months, and then MAYBE the game will come close to being how great it was before. Until then, the game is but a weak shadow of what it once was. An almost laughable effort here if is wasn't so desperate.
|
I highly doubt anyone else has this opinion but I'll address it anyway. I am desperate to make Torn a bigger and bigger success, yes, it is a big part of my life. No disasters have been created - there have been some trolls (I assume this person is one of them) and some complaints over decisions that have been made, but I only know of improvements that have been made in the past 18 months.
We have spent the last year getting the game economy under control, if users want to leave because they're making slightly less money than they were before, or they're not automatically 'winning' the game anymore, that is fine, and their decision. Changes to the economy will continue, most likely forever, that's why it's important for people to adapt to changes and understand that everyone else is in the same boat. We will however make any changes as easy on users as possible - this will of course be helped by the player committee.
By _Cynic_ [206537]
So basically unless you pay, you either troll or do not care about the game!
Why on earth doesnt he use the same principle for staff if subscriber status is so important!
Based on that view, I now no longer feel this committee represents me at least, I mean, I am only a troll or dont care about this game. |
No, not at all. I swear some people are just misreading or just trying to find things to get upset about. If you pick apart every little thing someone says, turn it upside down, and then take it out of context, you're always going to find something you're unhappy about. Many Torn players seem to do this on a regular basis. I did not say you were a troll if you're not a subscriber. I said the factor is there to 'weed out' the trolls and people who don't care about the game. It seems I need to add yet more clarity for some people.
The subscription status factor is there as a benchmark for us, it reassures us that you could potentially be a good member for the player committee, because you're spending money on the game. As for people who 'donated in the past but don't have subscriber status' this is not a good benchmark, because we do not know whether you donated, or if you bought the pack, or if you've donated real money recently.
It's a benchmark for us to use while selecting members. It is not a 100% requirement (as you've been told I think... 8 times now in the forums).
I cannot explain everything I mean or do in its entirety while adding 20 confirmation clauses stating exactly what I mean to make sure people don't misinterpret. I'm not writing a legal document, I'm informing people. You know very well what I mean, and you're just turning it around to find something to insult you.
Last Edited: Thu Mar 24, 2011 20:55:24
|  | |
|
|
![Chedburn [1]](http://awardimages.torn.com/1-67459-large.png "Chedburn [1]")
Follow @TornRPG