' Wrote:As I've told before on a previous page, it also comes not only to suggestions, ideas but also to forum politics, some parties seeking advantage, forms of leverage, favoritism as well. Do you think that every single person participating in such discussions will be talking objectively and out of good intentions for the benefit of the community and past behind personal matter of taste? Are you sure this is how its going to work? I beg to differ here. If theory to work it has to take considerations of the human nature into for practical implementation to be closer to the original idea and intent. It is of course nice to think that everyone will play nice and constructive, but reality isn't like that, as sanction section would be a nice example.
Talks about high standard are nice and all, but let's not forget - we all have quite different ideals in our heads, not necessarily the same as your neighbors would think. And even smallest details can rise up to holy wars.
Yes human nature would need to be taken into account, I agree. No I do no believe everyone here has the community at heart, I do not believe everyone is capable of leaving their politics at the door. I would hope they would, but you could fill the world with the hopes of many and still get nothing done. It would require moderators to keep the peace, it would require the calmer minds to calm a firey situation that approcahes, it would also require that the faction leaders ensure that the person posting the thread can be trusted not to let it degenerate into a flame war, the onus is equally on the thread authors to ensure that they are getting the maximum benefit from this concept.
Saint Del is considered a holy healer of diseases of children, but also as a protector of cattle.
' Wrote:As I've told before on a previous page, it also comes not only to suggestions, ideas but also to forum politics, some parties seeking advantage, forms of leverage, favoritism as well. Do you think that every single person participating in such discussions will be talking objectively and out of good intentions for the benefit of the community and past behind personal matter of taste? Are you sure this is how its going to work? I beg to differ here. If theory to work it has to take considerations of the human nature into for practical implementation to be closer to the original idea and intent. It is of course nice to think that everyone will play nice and constructive, but reality isn't like that, as sanction section would be a nice example.
Talks about high standard are nice and all, but let's not forget - we all have quite different ideals in our heads, not necessarily the same as your neighbors would think. And even smallest details can rise up to holy wars as to what is higher and right what is not.
For now I think it's a good idea in theory, however I can see it stumbling upon reality in not a good way. I'd say more thought needed for something like that, and a lot more if it aims to be mandatory. As so far I've only heard of what can happen if a faction fails to conform, but I haven't seen much of the way it works, and said "rules of engagement", which no doubt are tricky here.
I don't mean to be offensive but this post is generic pessimistic. Based on these arguments you couldn't allow any new factions to request official status. =/
Unfortunately, Yuri, he's right. People have to take a risk if they want a faction. Feelings will be hurt, yes, but it is inevitable that this happens. If we didn't have conflict we wouldn't evolve, ya? Discovery would stagnate further than it has.
Quote:Quick comment - we thought that Panzer was the Leader, Swift. -Agmen
' Wrote:I do'nt mean to be offensive but this post is generic pessimistic. Based on these arguments you could'nt allow any new factions to request official status. =/
Heh, don't get me wrong, it's not pessimistic, it exposes the other side of the medal, thus keeping realistic view on the idea from the point of experience and observation of the surroundings. Let's not forget things we've seen here but at times are afraid to admit to ourselves even. There is much that floats the boat around, and not always good and shiny. The meaning of my post is to encourage looking deeper into the problems we are facing here, and perhaps to make Del's idea more closer to the reality. Like I said before, because it also deals with those things it needs more work, failing to consider them might turn the whole idea into quite the opposite of the constructive origin.
p.s.: Eppy, I know quite well about the risks, the feelings that get hurt and so on, don't I? :-) But conflicts aren't always the same and not always fought for the better but instead for worse. Necessary evil should be kept at necessary levels and not go outside of them, that's the main concern for me here.
Yuri is right, as it stands this is not a practical idea, it needs more work. More work to define how we will deal with personal confilcts as and when they arise, it was my intention to test the waters and see if this idea was feasible, I think it is. Now I go to work on the details.
Saint Del is considered a holy healer of diseases of children, but also as a protector of cattle.
Hm. Of course, you are right. But to stay with the metaphor:
A boat is always equiped with a Helm and a Sail, to keep the ship on course, if the waves get too strong. In our case, it's the mods we have to rely on.;)
' Wrote:The simple truth is, conflict of any kind brings change, and change is good. This is how natural selection works, ja?
Be careful about justifying conflicts here so broadly, Eppy, there is a level of necessity but also an excess that does bring changes that aren't beneficial at all.
![[Image: Del1.png]](http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a344/Spiderjerusalem1979/Del1.png)
![[Image: Norway.png]](http://www.dfat.gov.au/geo/images/Norway.png)
![[Image: f_48123637838m_812390c.png]](http://img19.picoodle.com/img/img19/3/3/6/olixtreme/f_48123637838m_812390c.png)