Devs require majority approval from community for major changes

[LaWey]

While in some cases things really looks like brainfart and devs require slap to return from planet nibiru, in anothers that populism will sucks. In idea its all good, but some additional filter required imo, especially with tendention to move everything in stale swamp state.

[xyva424]

I think this would help in the transparency of development, Id rather know whats coming rather than the sudden surprise changes that are disconnected from the actions taken by the factions that worked to maintain official status and get railroaded into something else. Maybe it could even inspire more people to start working toward some faction goals or potential development goals if approved by the majority.

[Binski]

So the mods are keeping track of the alt voting right?

But yes this would make sense. So, you're telling me, that oh I dunno, use Leeds as an EXAMPLE...

The community would have had to have a majority vote, using a timed vote (say a week limit depending on the vote perhaps), to have decided to 'glass' the planet?

Well, again, for the wars, I'm content to let things unfold within a battle system. That would make the most sense for those issues, as they are determined by the battles, not just votes, as to vote, you must get online and in the action.

Don't simply have a vote on whether Outcasts should go moderate or not, the avenue should just be there, which means after a certain point, cut the accusations of trying to destroy cannon, and instead recognize it as a legitimate attempt to bring about organized reforms. If it were being announced that we'd allow these options with certain requirements, at least groups would have the option to go to work both on forum and in game to make their fair attempt. The rest can get determined in game. The Outcasts have always been a textbook example. I say let anyone try to reform them, but at the same time, those who are opposed get their chance to quash it.

Really, we can outline specific options for groups to try, and under pre determined requirments, make it so that changes will be mostly guaranteed, save for request to have a vote to veto a change. It should probably be more like, we'd hold a vote to not allow a change that would normally go through for meeting all of the outlined requirements.

So if DSE want's to add a planet base to a planet, and they know its an option because it meets the criteria (the shipped required materials, made required RP with governments, made required internal RP, etc) they know they'll get it as long as they do all the work. Then if someone objects, players would always be able to request a final open vote on the issue. That should probably need a minimum amount of signatures as well. If 5 players oppose it, one files a request on their behalf to hold the vote. I'd prefer it that way, as players go into working on their chosen option knowing its unlikely to get denied, its just a matter of doing the work. That leaves it a little more motivating in the end I think, rather than working out separate deals for each issue in advance with a dev before even doing the actual RCR. It also means if players want to stop a change, they take the effort online, rather than voting on everything. We just need to come up with a list of options people want to take usually, and what they should require RP/activity wise, so it becomes fairly standardized. Voting can simply be a last resort when people feel something's not right.

Another example, if you want to build a shipyard, just have people get up to a Core 5, and add additional requirements, like a supply drive on top of it all for additional commodities to signify the base is actually going to be an NPC shipyard. In that case, people can just go to work making the base, the staff keep track as they normally do with core upgrades, and instead of asking for a normal Core 5, they ask for Shipyard status, which would be the same plus a little more. If players know they can just do it, they'll go to work on it, or go to work fighting those trying in game. When all of these new options are outlined, and we have more guaranteed options for player development with choices that the same for each option every time, advertise it!

Instead of calling it 'Roleplay Canonization', we could be announcing the addition of a 'Player Roleplay Development System' combined with a Faction Battle System, and we'd have much more updated and modern game to advertise.

---

The Further Exploits of Captain Antares (August 2015) │ (alt) JonasHudson
*Argo | Special Operative ID (Approved Request)* | Argo Compilation Video
################ *Proposed OF Challenge System* ################
############### The Book of Piracy (Piracy Tutorial) ###############
############### Binski Alamo (Youtube Channel) ###############

[Lucas]

This sounds like a group of friends can effectively put a halt to every major development attempt that they personally dislike, and knowing OF's and their Leaders mentality, nobody is willing to give up a base or anything like that so prepare yourself for stalemates that last 300 years and will become even more boring than what we currently have, which is nothing

[Sava]

1. Angry mob =/= majority
2. Majority is oftentimes wrong.
3. That's why democracies usually work through representative power.

[Prysin]

How do you determine whether there is majority approval?

1 month open community poll. 1 vote per account. Then set a qualifier, for example only accounts older then 3 months, with more then 100 posts will be eligible to vote (to prevent people from spamming alts).

This sounds like a group of friends can effectively put a halt to every major development attempt that they personally dislike, and knowing OF's and their Leaders mentality, nobody is willing to give up a base or anything like that so prepare yourself for stalemates that last 300 years and will become even more boring than what we currently have, which is nothing

so basically like it was before, in 09-14 era.... it worked fine. you spent 1 month bickering, then 1 month crying because devs decided not to care about you anyway and just did it.

[sasapinjic]

Nope,that wuld be bad change ,Democracy is a lie and Communism is best form of gowerment,even in Civilizations games that is proven.

---

Spoiler

welcome to Loberty
^ where you can get Freelancer ISO , in emergency

These two spoilers were too big so now they're both one ~Champ

[NoMe]

#sasapinjic, and you, what you really think? did you prefer a trumpet ? Us we have the problem who approach, but we don't want to lose our democracy

[NoMe]

do i really need to write anything else

this is probably the only solution left

mob rule as durandal put it

the dev team has no oversight besides themselves and do whatever they please, out of nowhere, and clearly not to the benefit of the community

that's where the community comes in

+1 but i don't want to be a dev

on other hand, what is mob?

[Alestone]

I vote w/ Binski

---

Alestone Enterprises

The Power To Get You There!