Proposal: Abolish the TC

[Lalina]

Resolved that to keep and maintain DMs and provide them with the ability to have fun, they need latitude to determine events in their games within certain limitations prescribed by the DM body

Therefore The DM body ought be given 100% control over IC events and things as under their necessary and needed perview.

Resolved that the player base has the right to call a Vote of Confidence in any individual member of the TC,

Therefore the player body ought be able to have a Vote of Confidence in the entire institution of the TC.

Resolved that the TC ought be a representative body constituted of fairly-elected individuals who the player body feel are their voice.

Resolved that the four most recently elected members of the TC resigned in protest of the TC rather than due to time constraints or any other such reason that made them unable to perform their duties as TC members.

Therefore any 'replacements' elected in their place are not really the voice of the player base, since they are not the individuals that the player body wants as their represenatives.

Resolved that the DMC only exists when there is a sufficient number of DMs to warrant it,

Therefore that the TC should only exist when there is a sufficient number of players to warrant it

Resolved that the player body wants to be actively involved in any discussion, as per the discussions of having mandatory public discussion periods for any and all proposals voting on by the TC.

Therefore, let it be Resolved: that the TC should be abolished and replaced with public discussions and public votes on any and all OOC matters.  IC issues will remain the perview of DMs.  If at such time this process becomes cumbersome, the player body can choose to reinstate the TC, just as the DM body can choose to reinstate the DMC.

[Nyrhtlyk the Dark]

#1) The DM's have total control over their games as it stands. But in order for Thardferr to be a shared world, with one group's actions affected another group's actions, there have to be rules that are shared between campaigns.

A)  Trip Tickets
B)  Experience Progression
C)  Availability of Classes / Races
D)  etc, etc, etc.  

#2) The player body has the right to call a vote in regards to the TC, especially since the TC is a player elected body which is meant to streamline the process of setting up material which exists outside of any individual DM's game.  However, the experiences of a few, do not necessarily constitute the opinion of the majority.

#3) If an election is held, the newly elected officials are not replacements, they are members. They are not being appointed, they are being elected.  So if there is another election and new members are added, they are just as legitimate as the old members. Again, they will represent what the majority of the PC body want in their membership.

#4) The purpose of the TC is fundamentally that of a release valve. Being a DM is a hard job, it's tough enough just to keep an individual campaign running, let alone shared world topics, politics, etc.   The TC's job is to release the pressure on the DM's, so regardless of the # of PC's, anytime there is a need for the DM's to have assistance, the TC is of use. However, if there was but one DM and no shared world setting, who needs the TC?  :)

#5)Therefore, let it be resolved. :)   I respect your opinion, I don't agree with it, so let me voice my own in response. :)

[Dalan]

I don't know how I feel about this.  The difference between OOC and IC is often blurred however, and I know it is very hard to get things done without someone in charge.

At any rate, I think the only way to abolish the TC (whether for a short time or not) would be to have a Thardferr wide vote, a DM body vote, and a TC vote, because thats how it was established (minus the TC vote, but the TC should have a vote as well, IMO).

[kluu]

Working on what has been proposed, we should let it be given to discussion for at least a week, prefferably two by some standards.

Since it is not proposed for the TC but for the PC community, the proposal goes to Thardferr wide vote.

If 2/3rd of the PC body agrees, then the TC is dissolved, just as it was passed by such vote in the first place.

A question of what is the soze of the community may come up. I have on reconciliatoin for this. If we count all actively playing or seeking PC as we had proposed, we cna figure what 66% of them is needed to vote for dissolutoni of the tC to pass it.

A two week period should be given for the vote as with any thardferr wide vote thqat has preciously been taken.

[Dalan]

The TC was established also with a DM Body vote, if my memory serves me correctly, so it should also require a DM body vote.

But that still doesn't say what is left in its place.  Before the TC, things weren't done by a majority vote by the TC, they were decided by the DM body or the Admins.

[Nyrhtlyk the Dark]

Before the TC, a proposal would pass onto the DM boards for discussion.  There, the DM's would debate it, and occasionally snippets of that conversation would be passed to the author for clarification or to give them a chance to respond.

Then, when the DM's got around to it, it'd pass onto their voting boards.  There, it'd linger in limbo until enough DM's voted on it to pass it.  Then, it'd be put into effect, when they got a chance to get around to it.

Some material, that was passed this way, has never actually made it into the public eye or even into usage.

[Lalina]

In 4 (or is it 5?) years of having a TC, only eleven official decisions were made.

If you look at the TC archived or TC private board threads, you'll see dozens of suggestions and ideas that were done as the following:

A proposal would pass onto the TC boards for discussion. There, the TC would debate it, and occasionally snippets of that conversation would be passed to the author for clarification or to give them a chance to respond.

Then, when the TC got around to it, it'd pass onto their voting boards. There, it'd linger in limbo until enough TC voted on it to pass it. Then, it'd be put into effect, when they got a chance to get around to it.

Some material, that was passed this way, has never actually made it into the public eye or even into usage.

I'll note that out of the eleven decisions the TC made, none were posted on the official boards before September 2003 and 9 out of 11 were posted within the past month.


On another note, in the voting process for the current/past TC, 34 individuals voted for who they wanted to be on the TC, faster than the current/past TC (which only involves 7 people) could vote on proposals put to them.  In other words, the Thardferr-wide vote for TC elections was more efficient and faster than the TC votes for proposals.  If the argument for the TC is based on efficiency -- it loses to public, democratic voting.

[Nyrhtlyk the Dark]

As I recall, the voting process wasn't that easy. :)    2 weeks of nominations, then nominations that were handled by MSN, instead of on the boards... Then 2 weeks of voting, the final confirmation etc. :)

Though, it's obvious the process at the moment is flawed. Several of these threads have been up longer than they need to at this point. However, I'm trying to get that rectified, but without moderator powers and only a voice.  It's hard to convince those that have the power to do what needs to be done to move things around.

[Lalina]

Doesn't sound too much better than the 2-4 weeks of public discussion, 1-2 weeks of private discussion, 2 weeks of voting and 1 week of DM confirmation that was proposed as standard operating procedure for the TC.

Oh, and who created that cumbersome election process? Yea, the TC.

My point exactly.

[Nyrhtlyk the Dark]

Actually, the streamlined version is 2 weeks discussion, 1 week for TC vote, 1 week for DM confirmation.  So a new topic can go from start to finish in a month's time.  Faster if voting and confirmation can be sped up, which is fundamentally what happens since the DMC is pretty much the whole of the DM body. :)

[Lalina]

And the streamlined version of voting for TC reps. is 1 week nominations, 1 week voting, 1 week confirmation.

So, democratic voting processes can be faster than TC rep. process.  3 weeks as opposed to one month.

So why not make everything democratic voting?

[Lalina]

Issues of efficiency aside, there are a lot of reasons why direct democracy would be better, given current circumstances.

It actually releases the pressure off DMs and TC members.  I'd argue there will be a lot less bitching and moaning and a lot less conspiracy theories about the DMs and TC if democratic voting on everything is implemented.

And, as we have seen and shown, the democratic process can be just as efficient and fast as the representative model.

So, if we can have everyone get their say and have an equal voice, without really having to undercut efficiency, why put power in the hands of the few unnecessarily?

[Liriel]

The TC isn't about power, it's about streamlining things.  At least that's the way I've always viewed it.

[Dalan]

Perhaps direct voting could work, but it would still require organization.

Who would decide which votes are legal?  Can anyone call for a vote?  What happens if votes are contested?  Who decides the results?

Plus, results from a once a year election wouldn't necessarily be the same as 2 to 3 topics a week.  Maybe the average Thardferrian wouldn't mind spending more time debating and deciding on issues than actually playing the game, but I doubt it.

Eventually you'd essentially be having the same 15 or so people voting and making decisions for Thardferr, and I don't doubt things will be as partisan as ever.

But does that mean things will be worse off?  I don't know.