Myst Online: URU Live Forums

Re: GoMes Discussion from AoG forums

ireenquench — Tue Sep 04, 2007 3:24 pm

Author: ireenquench

Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 3:24 pm

Whilyam wrote:

I would also point out AoG was started before the Guilds even were posted about. Back when Calam was told by Nick to suggest guilds to the DRC. [snip]

Just because I've read this twice now: I would like to point out that buzzword about "official" guilds being implemented has been around much longer, since the early D'mala era, both via DRC and via Cyan. Unfortunately I can't find the refering logs anymore, but I remember some DRC member telling the Liaisons that their function would one day be part of the Guild of Messengers. I dug up one thing, from May 2006.

Quote:

Q: Which of the current Guilds will you be keeping, if any?
Moke: I'm not sure we have the right to speak for any of the current Guilds. We want to support everyone's idea of a guild - within reason - and we will help establish a few important Guilds, as well. So, I guess, all the current Guilds will continue in some form, and others will be added.

Source: http://forums.drcsite.org/viewtopic.php?p=16010#16010

Players started picking this up afterwards.
I am not saying this to discredit the AoG forum, just wanted to set the record straight, the AoG forum wasn't first, the information that guilds were being planned was.

Re: GoMes Discussion from AoG forums

Anthony — Mon Sep 03, 2007 9:36 pm

Author: Anthony

Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 9:36 pm

Yes I will agree ireen I think that if what you are doing is orignal should not matter only that its getting done. As for the raw info plenty of places put that up that are working on this so the raw logs and such would not disappear suddenly.

Re: GoMes Discussion from AoG forums

ireenquench — Mon Sep 03, 2007 8:52 pm

Author: ireenquench

Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 8:52 pm

Since - as a player - I enjoy both processed and untouched information, where do I as an exploxer/customer fit into these diagrams? I'll only get processed? Not sure if I like that.
And I totally disagree with the concept of NEW, ORIGINAL and INDEPENDENT. Like, somebody decides to make radio or podcasts, aside from already existing groups/individuals, why shouldnt they be able to? Diversity is good, competition is good, having fun being your own one-man-show radio is good.
Otherwise that would be like FoxNews or CNN saying "no you can't have another news station, cause only we are the news". Bummer for free press, bummer for the viewers, who want to see a bigger picture (e.g. watch several stations) or are mature viewers wanting to decide which program to watch and which to not even bother with.

Re: GoMes Discussion from AoG forums

Eleri — Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:10 pm

Author: Eleri

Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:10 pm

Stevecrox wrote:

I think this is probably more complex then we need to be thinking at this stage.

Oh, heck yah.

Re: GoMes Discussion from AoG forums

Dudemom_2000 — Mon Sep 03, 2007 3:14 pm

Author: Dudemom_2000

Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 3:14 pm

Ian Atrus said:

Quote:

Anyone can talk about guilds everywhere they want but, at the same time and at this point, no one crowd is more official than the other. Random people discussing here about the GoMess have the same weight as a representative of each existing messenger organization discussing about it on the AoG forums; what will count, in the end, is the strength of the ideas that come out of the brainstorming session, not who or where came up with them.

Whilyam said:

Quote:

I agree. But just because people are talking on AoG doesn't make it elite or anything else that's been suggested.

Which is why I suggested the double posting from GoMess for now. That takes away the basis for anyone arguing one is "more official" than the other. It was also obvious some don't want to post over there for various reasons so what harm is it if discussions are on both? This way everyone gets included, no one can lay claim to hurt feelings about being left out or accusing of hidden agendas by hiding discussions etc., etc. In the end, like Ian said, it is the strength of ideas that come out of the brainstorming session that is important, not which site they are posted on. This way is fair to all. Both sites are very valid and will be very useful and in the end there may be a consensus to use one or the other because of ease of use but that is another thing to be determined in the future.... Arguing about which is the more valid site right now is pointless....we haven't even agreed on representation yet much less gotten a Guild Pub!

Re: GoMes Discussion from AoG forums

Whilyam — Mon Sep 03, 2007 12:27 pm

Author: Whilyam

Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 12:27 pm

Ian Atrus wrote:

Anyone can talk about guilds everywhere they want but, at the same time and at this point, no one crowd is more official than the other. Random people discussing here about the GoMess have the same weight as a representative of each existing messenger organization discussing about it on the AoG forums; what will count, in the end, is the strength of the ideas that come out of the brainstorming session, not who or where came up with them.

I agree. But just because people are talking on AoG doesn't make it elite or anything else that's been suggested.

Re: GoMes Discussion from AoG forums

Stevecrox — Mon Sep 03, 2007 11:50 am

Author: Stevecrox

Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 11:50 am

Guild Of Messengers operational Format

Samsbase
These two images (one annotated one not), are of a flow Diagram showing the way I believe the Guild of Messengers should work. To understand the Guild council level, refer to the quoted post. And remember everything except the public front end (including public forums) and the boxes labelled news and the guild of messengers announcements box are NOT accessible by explorers, only guild members.

Of note is that the news boxes are for the individual member organisations edition and format of the information provided by the council level information (raw data) that is converted into consumer-level news by the member organisations (each offering this conversion into a different format, live broadcast, pod cast, comic etc.)

Diagram 1
http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w210/samsbase/model.jpg
Diagram 2
http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w210/samsbase/mannotated.jpg

Samsbase wrote:

I think a group should be a "publishing group". The seat on the council (read my comments for reasons for not letting everyone possible in on the council and listen to the URU Radio shows for more discussion) should be given to a publishing group, or in other words, the banner that your independant group falls under to get it's content out.

I'll use URU Radio as an example, the first example where it is awarded a council seat, the other where it isn't.

1. URU Radio has it's own website where all content is posted independently from the rest of the net. URU Radio doesn't rely on anyone elses funding, URU Radio has it's own server and domain. URU Radio offers an original angle on messaging in URU.

2a. URU Radio joins with The cavern today. URU Radio is listed as a cavern today division and is accessed via a link on the nav bar on their site. URU Radio uses their servers, URU Radio may donate to The Cavern Today but the main funding and organisation for the project (eg.. website and forums) is run by the cavern today.

2b. URU Radio is a pod casting service, and bears little difference to the cavern today other than it has slightly different topics and a different schedule. (the council will decide on the difference between 1 and 2b by a council vote that will determine all decisions in the guild)

In the 1st hypothetical situation, URU Radio gets a seat on the council. the other two, the seat is not given. In 2a, the parent publishing organisation (in this example The cavern today) votes on behalf of URU Radio. In 2b no vote is given for URU Radio but may still be considered a member organisation at the council's discretion.

My answers to some of your comments (thinking ahead):

Yes there is a possibility that organisations will not get to join the guild. There must be some exclusivity to the guild, otherwise everyone who wants a council vote will just split off from their parent publishing organisations and declare themselves independent and worthy of a council vote.

Individuals do NOT get a vote on the council, each organisation gets 1 vote each.

It will not necessarily be easy to join the guild !! However if you join an organisation that has a seat on the council, you can call yourself a guild member. Otherwise you have to create a NEW and ORIGINAL and INDEPENDENT organisation and submit yourself to a council vote which decides on eligibility for a vote.

Forward Thinking:

Council members may have ranking (lvl 1 council members being highest etc. may have 2 votes when a new council member at lvl 2 may only have 1, some issues will only be voted on by lvl 1 members). This will counter new groups having too much power in the guild. Organisations being promoted from lvl 2 to lvl 1 will be promoted on a lvl 1 council vote.

There may be open votes for anyone in a member organisation (equal votes for all).

The original council, when decided upon will be put to a community vote with a binary outcome "yes" or "no". the vote will not give the option "yes, but as long as such and such a group doesn't have a seat". On the outcome the vote is given a "no" THEN the council will be rewritten, and put to the vote again (multiple times possibly to get it right)

Operations in the guild will be put to a set of votes AFTER the council is made.

Addition:

I decided to make a diagram showing the council level processing of information within the guild.

Diagram 3
http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w210/samsbase/councillevel.jpg

Stevecrox
I think this is probably more complex then we need to be thinking at this stage.

Re: GoMes Discussion from AoG forums

Ian Atrus — Mon Sep 03, 2007 10:52 am

Author: Ian Atrus

Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 10:52 am

Anyone can talk about guilds everywhere they want but, at the same time and at this point, no one crowd is more official than the other. Random people discussing here about the GoMess have the same weight as a representative of each existing messenger organization discussing about it on the AoG forums; what will count, in the end, is the strength of the ideas that come out of the brainstorming session, not who or where came up with them.

Re: GoMes Discussion from AoG forums

Whilyam — Mon Sep 03, 2007 2:14 am

Author: Whilyam

Posted: Mon Sep 03, 2007 2:14 am

I would also point out AoG was started before the Guilds even were posted about. Back when Calam was told by Nick to suggest guilds to the DRC. That we now have these forums is nice, but what's the point of having the AoG forums if no one will use it?

Re: GoMes Discussion from AoG forums

Samsbase — Sun Sep 02, 2007 11:37 pm

Author: Samsbase

Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 11:37 pm

we do... but however Veralun. The discussion is archived there. As you can see steve is basically relaying it over here, but over there there is a set "guild of Messengers " forum, where everything is easily laid out.

Everyone is always free to sign up and read over there. no one is ever excluded.

Re: GoMes Discussion from AoG forums

veralun — Sun Sep 02, 2007 11:30 pm

Author: veralun

Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 11:30 pm

Samsbase wrote:

The reason the discussions started over on the AoG was because there was no "guilds" forum here.

Now we have, so you are welcome to discuss on the MO:UL forums.

Re: GoMes Discussion from AoG forums

Samsbase — Sun Sep 02, 2007 11:27 pm

Author: Samsbase

Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 11:27 pm

The reason the discussions started over on the AoG was because there was no "guilds" forum here. It was also an easy way for people to organise discussions.

there was no exclusivity about posting there, and the location of the forums has been advertised on multiple occasions as well as the normal word of mouth spreading of information.

Re: GoMes Discussion from AoG forums

Ahvree — Sun Sep 02, 2007 9:00 pm

Author: Ahvree

Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 9:00 pm

While I would rather see your whole posts on the MOUL forum and not have to preview them elsewhere through a link I did read the latest post. Is this the complete list you are working with? It looks like a very short list. I would suggest we open the discussion to many more messengers and go from there. Please read posts from Ireenqueench and Dude Mom.

Thank you

Ruby

Re: GoMes Discussion from AoG forums

Stevecrox — Sun Sep 02, 2007 7:54 pm

Author: Stevecrox

Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 7:54 pm

I have updated the posts with todays postings, if you scroll through you will see Update in bold and big letters just read from there. I'll move the phrase each time I update things. Again to make things simplier I point everyone interested in discussing this to the address below

http://www.uruguilds.org/uruguilds/viewforum.php?f=33

Re: GoMes Discussion from AoG forums

ghaelen — Sun Sep 02, 2007 1:42 pm

Author: ghaelen

Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 1:42 pm

I like what you are saying here, even if I disagree with some of it.

Whilyam wrote:

I understand the concern over pre-guilds/whatever they may be called. My opinion, however, is that it can't hurt to try.

Aside from the actual work many groups are already DOING, I think talking and envising IS trying, since you can't be or do something without being able to see yourself being or doing that which you envision. The statements people make reflect what they are envisioning. If their very first statements include "rules, regulations, and certain groups/individuals can/can't vote" I see in those statements someone who envisions a structure of control. Do they see themselves doing the controlling as well? I don't know, but I believe it will become clear in subsequent statements.

However, if the statements made are about helping each other, working together, meeting, discussing, and taking action as equals (groups AND individuals), then I see in those statements a vision of links, networks, cooperation and collaboration that is building a mutually beneficial structure. What leadership develops only develops as it is needed and out of those groups/individuals involved in the DOING. It is a large circle with many openings. Occasionally some people will be elected to stand in the center and bring the many ideas together, note ideas, and take them back to the large circle. But those people in the center are not the ones who have a mind to STAY there, nor do they worry whether anyone is in the center or not. The people who come to the center are there only until the task is done, then they return to the large circle and resume working as equals to everyone else. Next time someone else might be asked to stand in the center. No one owns that center position.

The imposition of structure from the top-down or center-out carries with it ONLY the visions of those FEW who claim AUTHORITY to determine what that structure SHOULD look like. The circle is small and closed with a self-selected group in the center who do not easily yeild their place. THIS membership is tightly controlled. It alone determines how large the outside circle is and how many/few openings there are. There is less free movement from center to periphery, and without spaces for new people/ideas, potential developments may be completely ignored.

Quote:

In the end, we're ALL going to have these groups get crushed and re-formed under the DRC's/Cyan's system. What we do now may only form the foundations for what's to come. Or perhaps Cyan has something wholly different.

This is an excellent way to say it. This cannot be said OFTEN ENOUGH. I do feel that a structure built from the ground up/circle inward will be less adversely affected than those who have for any length of time, stood concretely in the center. There is already flexibility and movement with an open structure, which can then much more easily adapt to any change in direction.

Quote:

And I trust that Cyan will come up with, or use good ideas. We have the power to start working on those ideas. That's why I think we must try.

I agree. I have listed to concerns that the guilds will be left hanging like the liaisons were (well, the "council" or "masters" will be left on their own). I do think Cyan/DRC learned a lot from that.

But think about it -- if a large network of groups and individuals is collaborating, cooperating, adapting to new ideas and running on its own, what difference does it make if there is a change in "official" direction? If they are all having fun, they will have fun with that as well. We know something official is coming; we KNOW change is coming -- let's keep doing our work, having fun, and let any guild "leadership" evolve slowly out of what people are and will be doing. The GOG have been working on their own for years. Their example of self-direction and self-management is a good one to follow, I think.