RL Charter

[Fusion]

I think it is time we wrote a charter (http://tinyurl.com/d9dve) for RL. Example charters are here (http://tinyurl.com/8dv3p) and here (http://tinyurl.com/86ldx).

Using Sturmgrenadier as an example, I think "Online Gaming Syndicate" describes our organisation quite well.

We should consider forming a "council" of officers and elect a president/chairman to preside to make executive decisions about the future direction of RL.

We should also try to normalise the recruitment policy across all games, we should evaluate our current systems and find the one that works best, then implement it on all... :)

[Echor]

In principal a very good idea.

How would you expect a council to work and what would they do?

Some thoughts of mine, some relevant, some not, skip if you don't like reading:

Recruitment, as you know, I've strong ideas on this in PS, but I doubt that they'd apply to all games, in general the simpler the better, no drawn out and awkwardly implemented rules, just simply if someone fits, they are in. (some of you may have noticed 1 or 2 recruits in PS have disapeared, I'm quite ruthless about it, but more in the benign dictator way)

Again PS is an old game now, but lessons from it could be applied to other games. Some of my views I know are not shared universally but I believe that its not really possible to have too many members, ok some will not be as active in the whole social/group thing, but still are a benefit in general, anyone that isn't should be immediately kicked if they prove that they bring disripute etc to the outfit/clan/guild.

RL in PS has survived, but don't forget we got down to only having 3 active players at one point, largely because we put a freeze on recruitement, and the game changed at the same time (not necessarily only 3 members playing, but that was the max outfit squad for a while), so recruitement is an ongoing necessity, it just needs to be handled calmly, fairly and without worry to overload.

People are gregarious by nature, they can't help it, so its no surprise that certain groups of people will tend to gather together, the problems come when those groups get criticised for what they are doing, feel let down by another group or get too high on their own self image to not feel part of the larger group, this last point I feel is the hardest one, so perhaps to put something in this charter that really makes it clear that we want people to be part of the community, not just to join in with a select few and hide there.

I know this looks like a ramble, but I could go on for hours about the whole thing, then sum it all up with:
what it really needs is for one strong willed person to run the whole damn thing, it cuts the red tape. but to expect all others to contribute as effectively as they can, with full knowledge that one persons full and absolute comitment might look half hearted to another that doesn't have the full facts on that individual.

[Hincey]

Some sound thought patterns there m8

IMO could think we should try the "council" along with the "One strong willed person". i.e. One main cheif calls all the decisions and if he needs help deciding the best way to deal with things then he can ask the council? It aint a million miles away from the system we got IMO. We just need to make clear who is the Daddy :D

just my 2 cent

[FuSs]

if we form a council it will be:

b00n
me (shy/fuss)
nkodengar (for his effort)
1 represantive of each game (the game leader e.g. echor for the ps part)

[Fusion]

I think we should have more than 1 representative from each game, for instance I think all of the current WoW PvE officers are doing an excellent job of developing the guild.

We should try and keep the council of a group of active members, so if someone goes on an extended hiatus then we will need to promote someone to fill the gap whilst they are away.

One option is to have the the council up of our regular veterans, so if someone has been with us a couple of months and put plenty of hard work in then they can choose to become involved if they wish. Something like the "service guarrantees citizenship" in Starship Troopers.

[Fusion]

Another thing that worries me is I see very little happening very little happening with the PvP guild on these forums, considering they have "proper" RL name it worries me that its going to disappear and we won't be able to reclaim it.

[Fusion]

Continuing my tendancy of replying to myself. If the CS:S section is no more, should the CS:S officers still have access to this forum (no offence intended to those officers)?

[FuSs]

one per game is enough.
the officers can tell the leader what they want and the leader can tell the council about it.
every active group will have a seat in the council.

[JojoTheSlayer]

Do we realy need a Hige Councile
( as in a section over the officer debate for RL future debates)?

Woudnt that be the same as more or less disregarding the current officer role ( 1 part game 1 part community )?

I think it would be better to just have a few peps that could "draw the line" if the community of officers and clan commanders couldnt agree on a RL altering issue.

To take a eg from the Forum, which kinda works like that already, Fusion makes planes, puts up a debate and listens/take part in it. The changes to hes planes that are strongly wanted by the majority of the community he changes and thoses changes that he sees later are "needed", but peps have no real intrest in or there isnt a majorety to a or b he just "draws the line" and picks ether a or b...

Having a few guyes to have the final word in stale mate issues I would think will do. Blocking off peps that have an intrest in RL future just to use a setup from a clan that has much, much more members and byrocratic isnt the right way to go I think.

[Echor]

From my experience:

If its complex it will fail.

If its simple it can work.

Imo what is needed:

Strong leadership with direction (one or two people at most), these people can if they wish consult others, but don't need to.

If the leadership is fair, people are happy and just get on with the game, socialising on the forums etc. If the leadership is seen as unfair, or rules too strict, people simply vote with their feet, we've seen it before, best way to lose people, is to piss them off. Often the easiest way to piss people off is to give them choices or demands that they aren't interested in/unqualified through real life experience to answer.

So strong top end leadership, cut out the red tape, just get things done.

Obviously the leadership has to designate others to run things, bit like a government.

Democratic rule is no use when most people either aren't interested, or are on a power struggle.

Benign dictatorship is the most effecient way to run things.

People join, they see how things are run, drop into their happy niche and get on with life.

[JojoTheSlayer]

You could probaly get allot more done whit a dictatorship, but you can hardly call that a community. Also there are online issues whit dictaroship and that is that unlinke a nation that can force peps to stay in that country a clan dick :) cant do the same.

Ergo faital unpopulare disions that wherent even debated by the "majority of the RL intrested peoples ( officers )" mite causse unwanted membership loss.

I agree that we should have a leader of some sort that is intrested in RL etc, but not to the distance and power of a dictator, if you know what I mean.
We are already a one party community, so we can do whit a voted in offical "runner of the clan"

That last part maby sounded a bit lame, but I just dont whant a "elite elite section". To put it another way. I dont want a TR Ostekake :)

[Fusion]

If the leadership is fair, people are happy and just get on with the game, socialising on the forums etc. If the leadership is seen as unfair, or rules too strict, people simply vote with their feet, we've seen it before, best way to lose people, is to piss them off. Often the easiest way to piss people off is to give them choices or demands that they aren't interested in/unqualified through real life experience to answer.You're right. Anyone willing to take the job up? :)

[Fusion]

These two articles (1 (http://wow.ogaming.com/info/Electro~8.php) 2 (http://wow.ogaming.com/info/Electro~11.php)) can be used as a basis for what we don't want RL on WoW to be...

[Daymare]

Another thing that worries me is I see very little happening very little happening with the PvP guild on these forums, considering they have "proper" RL name it worries me that its going to disappear and we won't be able to reclaim it.

haha, I was just wording my troubles to the officers online: I am really concerned with the PvE guild, it would be very sad if it decided to take its own path and leave RL behind.

Do not worry about this mate, as long as I am the leader of Renegade Legion PvP. this is not going to happen. I have been a veteran for ages, and it is the only guild I have ever felt at home in, the same goes for all the officers that we have at this moment. Anyway, the reason why you do not see much, is that I am too busy and too mentally strained to sort out everything at the moment. Give me a few weeks when my exams are done (the same goes for killerb and vis) and I will get things back up to date.

[Visionaire]

skool sux :(

[Daymare]

When it comes to ruling, controll and recruiting ill write it all out now:

from everything I have seen, shy has always been a decent leader of Renegade Legion, he represents what a Renegade should be (Loyal to the guild, and always interested in becoming better at what he does) and he has been leading with almost no big setbacks through the years.
This ofcourse counts for B00n and Deng as well, But deng goes without saying, silent in the shadows, and that schlag b00n needs to get his arse back here =)
Therfore I sugest that we continue like we have always done in this, Shy listen to the officers, and he makes the calls. Then we go one step further down the ladder, Guild masters make the calls, but listen to the officers.
I see no reason why this should not work =)

When it comes to recruiting, I really like the system we have on PvP. it basically work as the "vouch for system" that we had for a while. Everyone that have played with and or spoken to the person has a say, and can make their comments as they like. In the end the final call goes down to Officers and the guild/outfit leader, but everyone's voice is heard.

A very important thing though, is that I believe we could use a closed off forum that is only open for people with Membership status, so that people could post what they think, if that is needed.


EDIT: indeed vis.. indeed :/

[FuSs]

Community managers revamp:

Some month ago we made a big step when we advanced from planetside only
to become a multi game community.
It has shown that there are still some things to improve.
The first thing is to form a council of community managers.
These guys are responsible to lead the legion as a whole, solve community
issues, think about general recruitment rules (e.g. forum reg required, childish/immature guys arent welcome) and decide to which games we advance in future (also decide who is going to lead RL in those games and so become part of the council).
The council members will be:
b00n, me
people who show great effort to improve the RL community (e.g. dengar)
the game leaders of our permanent games (atm echor(ps), ironman(wowpve)
and daymare (wowpvp)).

We gonna keep this in the way we did in PS: Avoid bad blood and personal issues.
We help no one if we have to fight eachother in the council.
So everyone gets a Veto right when it comes to elect new game leaders.

The Council is not responsible for the ingame leadership.
Thats up to the Game leaders and there officers.
In addition its up to the Game Leaders to enforce the general rules within their community part.
If a Game Leader retires he can suggest a follower which is confirmed by the council or not (its of no use if the new council member and the consisiting council cant stand eachother).

Non supported games (e.g. americas army, eve, counterstrike):
feel free to group up as renegades in non supported games and use the
[RL]Name tag if you want.
non supported only means that we dont take part in leagues and/or play in a persistent world.
pure entertainment :)

this council will replace the current forum officer system.
due to the infinite amount of officers possible this is a necessary step to keep the community leadership small and tight.



your comments and suggestions please

[Echor]

due to the infinite amount of officers possible this is a necessary step to keep the community leadership small and tightThis goes along with how I feel things should be run, that is the responsibility of a very small number of people, so that everyone else can just get on with things and have fun.

Would we then need an officers section for each game?

I remember you mentioning that Boon was going to be more active soon, I assume that's still going to happen (something about work or exams, can't remember)?

As it was you guys that thought up the whole concept originally I'd say go for it :)

[FuSs]

b00n changed his permanent residence back to my home town so i see him pretty often now.
since today he has his internet access back but he is pretty busy with work.

the lazy git isnt used to work, study and play games at the same time :P


@ the officer section: would say so. every game should have his own officer section so those guys can discuss how to run the guild/outfit in that game.

[GuardianAnge1]

i feel that seperating each officer forum is a bad idea and it starts separating each games group from eveyone else. Since there are not many officers, i feel that those who are completely understand that another games problem is not theirs.

[Echor]

i feel that seperating each officer forum is a bad idea and it starts separating each games group from eveyone else. Since there are not many officers, i feel that those who are completely understand that another games problem is not theirs.My reasoning for seperating the games officer forums would be so that posts don't get lost if things are busy in one game, perhaps swamping another, also somewhere that the officers can just chat about their game, not worry about much else.

Also scalability, as RL is expanding into other games, what we see now could be a fraction of what the future holds, get things organised first, then no muddle later, imagine say 10 different games, each having many officers, as Fuss pointed out, the number of officers has no limit.

[Fusion]

Like your suggestions Fuss :)

[JojoTheSlayer]

i feel that seperating each officer forum is a bad idea and it starts separating each games group from eveyone else. Since there are not many officers, i feel that those who are completely understand that another games problem is not theirs.My reasoning for seperating the games officer forums would be so that posts don't get lost if things are busy in one game, perhaps swamping another, also somewhere that the officers can just chat about their game, not worry about much else.

Also scalability, as RL is expanding into other games, what we see now could be a fraction of what the future holds, get things organised first, then no muddle later, imagine say 10 different games, each having many officers, as Fuss pointed out, the number of officers has no limit.

I still think all officers forums ( not including the Council chambers ofC )should be under the same "tree" so every officer of one game as access to view the other officer forums so everyone can keep up to date on whats happening in each sector, if they want to.
I dont see the benefit from seperating the officers from each game.
Unless ofC you want officers from one game to not know most officers from another game that is....
Officer main room could be used for trivia, RL issues etc, while each game had its sub room for only issues in that game.

RL officers arnt idiots so peps would know when it was okay and not to post in a game room for a game that officer dosnet play. Eg if there was a officer/section leader debate in here about "getting more mages in the guild good/bad" I wouldnt post my view on mages from other games or anything simmilar....

[Fusion]

Will be definately splitting the officer's forums off with individual access to avoid a repeat of the GA's rant thread.

[Ironman]

Will be definately splitting the officer's forums off with individual access to avoid a repeat of the GA's rant thread.
/signed

[JojoTheSlayer]

Will be definately splitting the officer's forums off with individual access to avoid a repeat of the GA's rant thread.


Why? Its wrong to debate stuff? How about instead just setting in force som rules about beeing poliet etc of the posts get deleted and such. When peps start to act like children thats when the mods should step in and correct/delete/close etc give warnings...

If anything I think we should enforce the community, unlike sepperating it into sepperat "clans". We should not make it so that newer officers that come thinks that the game they are in "is RL", like it seems some officers now think. Sepperating the officers from each other will just enforce this.

Also scalability, as RL is expanding into other games, what we see now could be a fraction of what the future holds, get things organised first, then no muddle later, imagine say 10 different games, each having many officers, as Fuss pointed out, the number of officers has no limit.

When we get THAT big, yes, but that will be in a realy long time I think. Theres no need to "over organise". When a local football team desides to expand they dont right away buy the Pentagon HQ to staff there trainers whit a 1000 rooms extra "just in case".

Personaly I dont think we will become that big in terms of sections since most games "main stream" intrests die out after 6 months(CS:S). Ofcourse there are exceptsion to this, but I dont think there will be 10+ (WoW/PS) type games "living as a RL section" at the same time... In anycase even if am wrong its far far away from today.

Jojo.

[Fusion]

Will be definately splitting the officer's forums off with individual access to avoid a repeat of the GA's rant thread.
Why? Its wrong to debate stuff? How about instead just setting in force som rules about beeing poliet etc of the posts get deleted and such. When peps start to act like children thats when the mods should step in and correct/delete/close etc give warnings... No debating is good. However, the thread was posted by an officer from another game which lead to ill feeling etc., when it would have been appropriate to post it in the general or to send private messages to the game's officers. This got up some people's noses then everyman and his chiuaha joined the fray. It would have all been avoided if we had seperate forums... :)

[JojoTheSlayer]

No debating is good. However, the thread was posted by an officer from another game which lead to ill feeling etc., when it would have been appropriate to post it in the general or to send private messages to the game's officers. This got up some people's noses then everyman and his chiuaha joined the fray. It would have all been avoided if we had seperate forums... :)


If you think "the debate in question" had gotten any better in the main community forum I cant disagree more. Peps, especialy officers, should learn to debate in a respectibale fasion or expect to be moderated.

Splitting the officers forum will just be the same as saying "we change to forums for the peps that cant act like adualts" instead of saying "we wont tolerate that kind of debating..."

I just see this as going in the wrong way of staying as "one Clan". Whats the point of diffrent sections when in the end more or less noone outside "there game" knows anyone else. It becomes "us" and "them".

I have seen this lots of times...
Join the army, go to a diffrent camp and tell them to do stuff for you and you would see what I mean strait away. They do what you want, but you can usaly feel the tension. Same army, diffrent section whit low communications between each others on the lower ranking ranges is usaly the cause.

[GuardianAnge1]

No debating is good. However, the thread was posted by an officer from another game which lead to ill feeling etc., when it would have been appropriate to post it in the general or to send private messages to the game's officers. This got up some people's noses then everyman and his chiuaha joined the fray. It would have all been avoided if we had seperate forums... :)


If you think "the debate in question" had gotten any better in the main community forum I cant disagree more. Peps, especialy officers, should learn to debate in a respectibale fasion or expect to be moderated.

Splitting the officers forum will just be the same as saying "we change to forums for the peps that cant act like adualts" instead of saying "we wont tolerate that kind of debating..."

I just see this as going in the wrong way of staying as "one Clan". Whats the point of diffrent sections when in the end more or less noone outside "there game" knows anyone else. It becomes "us" and "them".

I have seen this lots of times...
Join the army, go to a diffrent camp and tell them to do stuff for you and you would see what I mean strait away. They do what you want, but you can usaly feel the tension. Same army, diffrent section whit low communications between each others on the lower ranking ranges is usaly the cause.

i agree totally.