The Shard Charter

[Yuusuke Akiyama IV]

It was voted on in the last meeting. Vote to have me stay or something else, which included the possiblity of a rotating moderatorship. They did vote me in, darnit... [img]/Web/emoticons/emotion-4.gif[/img]

Ah, I see... that would be superceded by the adoption of this Charter.

<smiles>

So fear not. If this Charter passes one day, we will rescue you.

[Yuusuke Akiyama IV]

on C`gan and Tantalyr's above:

that last by C`gan adding to Tant's looks to be workable language... does it fit with your concerns, Tantalyr or anyone else?

[C`gan]

Oh, yes! I forgot.

2f4) Those who work on the World Projects understand and acknowledge that this is voluntary effort and no reimbursement is made for travel, nor is any profit made by working on such projects.

I actually had someone say they'd be willing to transport resources for x copper a load. I had to remind them that we're all doing this on oour own coin. Don't know if the person joined a team and ran or not.

[imported_Frith-Rae]

Yes, this is the place to start the discussion.

Looking at Frith-Rae's:

1) you have some people voting 3 accounts... by report a rare few hold up to 9 accounts... Are you sure you want a smaller quorum? <honest question>

2) good points... would like to hear more on this one.

3) <grins> then ask we will.

About Moderator... I think something escaped in the reading. the Moderator is not to be "voted on". they just get their turn as their name comes up.They then prepare for and serve one meeting (there need be two lists). As each meeting comes "at the latest" once a month, maybe sooner, that inherently limits the term. But for one odd example: were the list to have but one name, that person would step down and step right back up...

(changed colors to make it easier to read....black on black no worky!)

1 - actually yes *I* am sure we don't actually need to express an exact quorum number. Here is my logic. We aren't always going to have 40 players active in the community meetings, or heck even in the community projects necessarily. If we set the number at 40 (and not let multiple accounts vote multiple times gets rid of your other point) - and only 20 or 30 people say showup in attendence at meetings a few times in a row - that's two months that nothing is ever decided on. That'ws two months where the pepole who give a crap, who are active and attending - can't decide or do anything because they are immobolized by those who obviously don't give a crap to begin with what the decisions are or they'd show. That's what I see anyway. Just my opinion.

2 - about when annoucements/agendas for meetings are released on forum - well, if you're goign to have a system where every single meeting is handled by a different person, unless you make it a *requirement* that they have to be checking the forums - then basically - things just aren't going to be announced or agendaized (yea not a word I just made it up! :)). You've got two people a month, or three, handling the meetings. Noone is there to assure quality - none is there to go "hey post up an agenda on the forums a week in advance" "hey remind everyone on the forums what the next meeting date is". This is the big problem I see with rotating moderators period - and why I already explained that position in the Voting Thread (the one where we voted about Plink). The consistency falls apart.

Now, I think it would be *great* if we could require someone to post a meeting date 1 week in advance, and an agenda 72 hours in advance. That to me is a more realistic posting date that people can keep.

But in the end, what happens if the moderator "next in line" doesnt do that?? So now everyone forgets about the meeting - and...."you just don't get to be moderator" again. Who does the reminding to the "next moderator of the week". The changeover is too rapid, IMO, to keep this consistent and productive *shrugs*.

Moderator Decision - ok so now we're not even voting on moderators at all?? I think you need to read the Voting Thread Tokoz posted about - teh community has spoken their mind about what type of system they want in place. And Although that system woudl also call for volunteers - similar to what you are suggesting, *I* at least would expect a voting on those volunteers. This entire community "thing" works based on votes from the entire community - and now you're tlaking about compiling a list of just "whoever- noone has any say" that rotate out moderator. Even though that list could include people who have no established history on this server (as in they may have never even been to a community meeting ever), or people on the server who don't even know where the forums are. Making *MY* job (as forum liasion), among other team leaders job, that much more difficult. I mean I PM Tokoz when I can't see him aroudn in game, kepe him up to date - how would I get in tocuh with any moderator who doesnt' even know where the forums are?

And I thinik the term limit confusion was I thought I read somewhere that the term time was two months - in that charter somewhere. I thought that was talking about the Moderator position - I may have misread or misunderstood what that 2 months referred to. :)

I think my only issue is just handing out a list of whomever wants to moderate the meetings, without having an appreciation of just what that entails - which isn't just "show up at wednesday at nine".

Now if peopel want that to be all the moderator does - well that's another discussion. And I say again, that system didn't work here on Order after the Shard Merge. Apparently it worked on SPirit, but even the Spirit regulars coudn't keep it going. And again, it would fall to the moderator to be Ticketing Zideon to attend, get updates on issues, listen to complaints from community members - etc. Plink outlined what he does in the voting thread - and its not just showup and delegate the meeting. We have pepoel rotating out every meeting, all that goes poofers.

woops...I dind tmean to go off on that topic :). Keep to the top of my post, its relevant...lol.

[Tokoz]

You can have a rotating moderator. It is possible. However. I do believe that it helps to have one person that everyone knows that they can turn to and don't have to worry about who is in what position at what time. Call that position whatever you want. The charter as it stands, does not fill that need.

[awdz]

i just assumed if the moderator rotates, then each meeting would end with clarifying who would moderate the next meeting, and its date/time...

[Archebold]

The world leaders council on Spirit had a much different structure, you are compareing oranges to apples in relation to what has transpired in the developement of the present meeting structure on Order.


The world leaders council of Spirit was a collection of all the guild leaders, and or representives of each guild, anyone however whithin the community could attend and participate. voteing was simplified by one vote per guild. the Issue would be presented at the meeting. then taken to each of the guilds to be voted on. the following meeting, the guild leaders and or representives would vote on the topic at hand based on the outcome of there guild vote on the matter.

that system got rid of who had how many accounts and had no need for accountability action, thus keeping it simple.

being that the membership within the meetings mostly was comprised of the guild leaders representing the interests of there guilds, a sence of distrust emerged early on, in regards to which guilds had control of the meetings. giveing birth to the rotation of moderatorship to guild leaders and or representives that would be determined at the closeing business of the prior meeting, by asking for volunteers to step up to take to temporary rotateing position.

the system worked very well, there was a trust factor that emerged with the rotation of guild leaders to moderate the meetings. consistancy was established within the secretary position that was constant. the secretary would keep the meeting minutes and post them on the shard forum, so that those that could not attend the procedings were kept up to date. the same meeting minutes was all that needed to be read in order for the next moderator to pick up the ball and continue with any ongoing issues.

The world leaders council was kept simplistic, which was what made it work, voteing was much easier to tally. a guild representative from each guild had to be present in order to express the vote for that guild.

the reconstruction efforts of Istarias assets was an appointed position that i held. the decision on what projects needed to be done first was left in the hands of the crews that were actually doing the work. because they knew what skills and resources they had available at the time to work with, when the council did not.

what we have here on Order is a much smaller population to work with, and far less guilds to be represented, so the system that was on Spirit would not work here until the population is up to speed.

what will work here is the constant position of the secretary, to compile the meeting minutes and post said minutes on the forums to be read by all Istarians with interest ,
that could not attend. the secretary would also bein contact with TG for invites to said meetings, or was in contact with someone else that had contactTG.

the posting of an agenda previously to meetings is a task that is reduntant and involves far too much effort thus placeing a complication factor into the preperations of the meetings.

The world leaders council of Spirit had a format of :

opening with a greating from the new moderator, giveing a brief Intro if needed.
reports from team leaders where then disclosed
followed by old business, that would continue ongoing discussion or to conduct voteing.
new business was then discussed which is when you submited ( the agenda of the current system) topics that were of interest at the time of the meeting. be itan issue with one of the teams and there progress .,discussions about any current ongoing event. or any other topic that needed to be addressed. that which didnt get covered in the meeting was carried over to the boards for discussion/debate and was old business the next meeting. thus keeping the meetings simplistic and less of a burden on any moderator.

what you have in place now takes far too much effort and will burnout the community at large. keep it simple, make the secretary the constant position and rotate your moderators so that all have a sence of participation within these preceedings other than sitting there raiseing there hand and waiting to be called upon.

there is no comparison between the meetings of Orderand Spirit , out of respect to the leaders that made it work that are no longer present, please refrain from any further comment on that which worked so well in its time.

on a final note:
I spend alot of time ingame, there is no calling out for help in the open channels for assistance to ongoing world projects, the present world projects channel is a dead link for channel campers with no postings of what is the current task at hand, step up to the plate and make your announcements to the community ingame on a regular basis an you will get a better responce.

public awareness of the meetings need to be addressed, you are currently working on a charter that the overall majority dont even know about, step up to the plate and make your intentions known ingame on the open channels and you will get the attention it deserves.

you are working with a small minority of the population because you have not let it be known ingame what you are working on, you have left it too the boards, that most players wont ever see, they arent here to read boards, they are here to play and enjoy the game.

[imported_Frith-Rae]

ahh yes a secretary position would do that nicely yes...

The *only* issue of course being - what if the secretary doens't make the meeting [:D]

And for *MY* Part I do try and at least make annoucnements, direct others re: the meetings and discussions to the forums - where I hang out - dragon chat. Esp. when topics from community stuff is brought up, I take part in conversation but I also direct them to the forums where they can find the information they are seeking - or encourage them to add their opinion there where it can be heard by more than just those in Dragon Chat. I also sometimes just point people here when I get tired of repeating information that is readily available to everyone.

A minority respond that they are thankful for the reminder - pointer - annoucememt and perhaps actually go to the forum.

A majority respond rather negatively to the idea that they would have to read the forum for anything at all, much less respond - and contine on with their discussion even though they've just been basically told that they aren't even aware of what they are talking about :).

So I would most certainly encourage more widespread "annoucements" across channels - but realize that for whatever reason, most of what I encounter when I do that is hostility and rudeness and a total disinclination to even look to see what its about. Could be a number of reasons for that I'm sure - none of which I really understand :).

[Archebold]

All the more reason to keep the meeting structure as simplistic as possible.

there will be the chance that key members of the meetings wont show up for various reasons.

there are enough people in place that can step up to the plate when needed to fill any gaps, namely the team leaders since they have a knowledge of the workings.

right now the system in place creats so much extra effort to conduct a meeting that if a key member was'nt present, you end up with a mess on your hands and a room full of waiting people. which in turn will have a ripple effect on whether they will show up to the next meeting or not.

all is needed is for someone to offer to post the minutes of the meeting, to cover what the secretary does (during) the meeting.

as far as team leaders not showing up, its there responsibilty to send a representative in there place, which is usually someone from there team.

[Yuusuke Akiyama IV]

Forgive my delay... quite a bit came in on my days of rest, it seems.

Well then. First, regarding C`gan's additional note: thank you for that reminder. WP is not about money, and that should be included.

Now to Frith-Rae's of the 8th (long): {thanks for the color change! how'd that get Black???}

re (1): I would caution that there are, in the draft proposed, rather few things that the Assembly can vote on that really matter. Basically, appointing a Team Lead, removing a Team Lead, subdividing a Community Effort (which would then require new Leads), Adopting this Charter, or Abandoning it. For matters of that lasting importance, I would strongly counsel against having no quorum requirement. I am open to further opinion as to whether 40 is enough, too many, or not enough, and will listen carefully here and as people call in-game.

re (2): about Agenda Item postings. I take that as a suggestion to shorten the required posting to 1 week for a meeting date and 72 hours for an agenda item. Would others agree with this shortening of the time? About theConsistancy matters therein, more in a moment.

re: Moderator Decision: Yes, you have it. The proposed draft would not have Moderators selected by voting, only by application, and then each in turn. Yes, that is different than what was the result of the "Keep Plink" discussion. If adopted, this Charter would supercede that.

re: Consistancy (of administration): I do understand the concern about the utter lack of consistancy that will result from rotating the Moderator task by list. To date, I am not convinced that the work currently ascribed to the Moderator (or his associate, delgation is fine) outside of meetings is infact neccessary other than: the posting of a Forum Thread for a Vote; the collection of those votes before meeting time for inclusion in a Resolution of the Assembly Vote; and the posting of a log of the session of the Assembly that person was Moderator of. I am open to hearing arguements either informing me of other tasks that are only doable by the Moderator (or his associate) or, if that list includes tasks that require a continuing hand, the addition to the Charter of a position similar to a Team Lead that would act as Secretary.

More on this below as I check other comments.

[Yuusuke Akiyama IV]

re Tokoz's: Yes, dead right there. As written, there is no consideration given to such. Comments in this thread after yours, however, do begin to draw attention to the idea of amore formalSecretary job... I will address that more hereafter.

re adwz's: As written, the constraints on meeting date are that they not be less frequent than a given period. That should be changed to include that at the closing of the meeting, the next meeting date is announced. Otherwise, yes, the list is read at that time and the next Moderator is called as part of the closing of the meeting (see Article 3 Section b about that changeover).

[Yuusuke Akiyama IV]

My thanks, Archebold, for taking the time to edify us that were not with you on Spirit in that day. Yes indeed a very different sort of meeting, in scope as well as in system.

The key suggestion I have lifted from that (as did Frith-Rae in her comment) is that you believe that a administrative position be made. For simplicity here, let us call it as it was above, a Secretary. A standing position that takes no part in Moderating meetings, but attends to the administrative tasks that the draft charter assigns to the Moderator. In observation, one might even consider 2 Secretaries, one for each of the day-of-the-week meeting times.

Plus point: Consistancy. Same face handles the "paperwork" every meeting. If there really are enough tasks (collective "we") want the Moderator to be doing outside of the meeting, then consistancy leads to efficiency and effectiveness there.

Counter-points: depending on one's thinking about the job, it can be any or all of "thankless", "consuming", "petty bureaucracy", or even "the person with the inside track with TG". My personal opinion is covered by the "thankless" category. The others come from feedback during the draft writing. It just sounds like something that could be a troublesome to the person doing it as Shard Herald work is...

I would like to hear more and different voices here on this idea. I would need to be won over to the idea of making Secretary a standing position, rather than a delegation of the current Moderator.

<edited for brevity>

right now the system in place creats so much extra effort to conduct a meeting that if a key member was'nt present, you end up with a mess on your hands and a room full of waiting people. which in turn will have a ripple effect on whether they will show up to the next meeting or not.

all is needed is for someone to offer to post the minutes of the meeting, to cover what the secretary does (during) the meeting.

as far as team leaders not showing up, its there responsibilty to send a representative in there place, which is usually someone from there team.

Might I politely note that there is no system in place, at least as far as this proposed Charter goes? It has not been adopted. If there is a system in place, it purely convention, the way that the recent meetings have been run. Benign Autocracy, with a healthy dose of appeals to those present to voice votes of support for a decision.

Still, I hear your call for simplicity in what we do, and will see what can be done to keep things that way, or at least limited. Thank you, Archebold (and Frith-Rae, and others who alluded to this before).

The hope is, and it is a fervent hope on my part, that by making the Shard Assembly into an Institution, chartered in a public way such as this discussion leads to, that is independent of any one personality being considered an autocrat, or even a "key member". Further, that is be an Institution that provides a meeting place for opinions, support for those Efforts seen to be fit to be done in the name of Community, and nothing further.

I have had the kind counsel of about a dozen folks I called upon during the drafting of the proposed Charter, and most all were of different guilds. Here, another half dozen or so have joined in. That, however, is insufficient for us to know the will of any large portion of the population. Which leads to my next request to any reading of this here:

That word of this discussion continue to be spread to all the people each of us know on Order in Istaria. That they be directed to these Forums to see what we are working on, for by no means is this finished work. That if, when told of this, the reply be "I don't look at the forums", then pray direct them to me (in-game) and I will do my best to send to them by other means a copy of what is being discussed.

Only by hearing many people's thoughts on this will it ever become useable.

...and if not enough care to teach us of their thinking, well then, that tells us what we should do with this whole idea, now doesn't it?

[Tokoz]

Again, thank you Yuusuke, for your work on this to date.

When I decided to see if the community movement could be going again, my original intent was to base it on the World Guild Leaders Meeting from the Spirit Shard. If you want you can even look up the first post, where it was called by the same name.

I soon became painfully aware of two problems, the first being simply, that I really hadn't participated in enough of those meetings to know exactly how they worked. I knew that they existed, I had a rough idea of the format, but I couldn't have moderated one.

The second thing that I noticed and what made adopt the format you see today, was that the nature of the game had changed. Guilds no longer held the same amount of sway that they used to. They were smaller and often more fragmented than before. With this shrinkage also came the opportunity to play with numbers where before the temptation had been less.

I didn't want the old format once I'd thought it over. I didn't want a bunch of separate sub-communities, I wanted one united community. From this grew the team concept and the post of a single moderator. I received many and varied degrees of threats from people regarding how they felt it should be done, but I've held to that. I still hold to it.

Meeting numbers have hardly deminished since the beginning, in fact the average is a little higher than the second meeting. The relationship of the community with TG has thrived. And the individual that desires their voice to be heard, has their voice heard. We now even have a global announcement on the shard as player's log in.

My thought's on the "secretary" position. That word does a pretty good job of summing it up, although, you'll see the original title I used, still in my signature: "Servant of the Shard." I think the original title says much more about the position. I never liked the term, "moderator" either because it always seemed like I had some sort of control of what was happening, when people that really know me realize, I was pretty much just barely holding the tether. I always thought of it as just "plinking" a meeting. :p

The adoption of this charter, will be my last act as Community Moderator. I stayed on longer because I didn't want to see the community movement die out. It's accomplished too much to give up on it. It will be all that I can do, health-wise, to finish this work to the point that it can continue unabated.

In light of this, the position will require substantial changes from how I have performed it. While I appreciate the efforts of some to preserve the integrity of that position, I do caution them that the future of the community should be their first consideration. We know from sad experience that as the job stands, no one will willingly take it.

Splitting the job into three separate jobs seems the most likely course of action. This roughly divides what I did into three equal parts.
1.Plinkers. You have a set of people, chosen by the community, and endorsed by a vote, to "plink" the meetings. These should be people of good standing in the community and prior experience of at least attending meetings. The number of people in that position should be determined by the community, but they MUST have control over who leads those meetings. Once voted in, I say they stay until, like myself, they can no longer handle their duties, or like many before them, they decide to leave the game. There should also be a way for the community to remove them if necessary. New people can be voted in as an agenda item.
2. Agenda secretary. This is the person who is voted in by the community and handles requests for the agenda items as well as makes the community annoucements. It would also be their job post meeting notes. All they handle is requests for the agenda items. Nothing else. This person also stays until the community releases them or they step down.
3. Tulga Eliason. This is the one who handles requests for dev chats, global annoucements and different community requests. This part of my job, I didn't like to talk much about because people seemed to think I had an inside line with Tulga, when all I really did, was communicate via IRC or https://support.istaria.com in the form of a feedback. The reason it was effective, wasn't because I was an insider or anything like that. It was effective because it saved time for Tulga to hear one voice and have it be a polite one with definite suggestions and resolutions.

In making this suggestion, I'm not saying that it will take three people to replace me. I'm saying that it will take three people to do what I did and keep the sanity lost to me. :p :p :p

Hope that helps everyone understand better 1) Why a charter and 2) Where I stand on the apparent loss of my position.

[imported_Leannae]

Something to take into account when writing this charter.

Racial tension. Order is a roleplaying shard and racial tension is part of the roleplay. It's all fine and well to want to bring the community together under one large fluffy blanket of warm brotherly love but, it IS a roleplaying shard. There needs/should be consideration put forth towards that too. Believe it or not, there are some hard core players who completely lose themselves in their characters when they log in. For the sake of roleplay, to help encourage roleplayand to keep within the guidelines of the roleplaying policy the charter should be writtento include elements of roleplay.

The Istaria lore has racial tensions written into it and for those who roleplay characters or use it as a crutch for actions it gives you broader range of people who will feel included.

Oh yeah, and Frons is the only true king of Istaria [:P]

[Tokoz]

The meetings are not RP and never have been. They require co-operation and tact.

[imported_Leannae]

Then the meetings shouldn't take place on Order. It is a roleplaying shard, it's meant to be a gaming world where you can assume the role of someone different and live the life of a fantastic race.

This is where you are losing people. You're trying to turn the shard into one giant guild rather then allowing people to roleplay. Think about the last Bardic Gathering, the actions that so many found offensive were done in the name of roleplay. By not including those who do roleplay by adapting to the rules of roleplay you lose members of the community you are trying to unite.

One of the rules of communication written by Tulga for communication on the roleplaying shard was OOC conversation was allowed providing all parties agree. By keeping the meetings and charter all OOC, you lose the people who just come to play a game, have fun and get lost in their character. Thus you will never unite the shard because you exclude some.

[Tantalyr]

Then the meetings shouldn't take place on Order. It is a roleplaying shard, it's meant to be a gaming world where you can assume the role of someone different and live the life of a fantastic race.

This is where you are losing people. You're trying to turn the shard into one giant guild rather then allowing people to roleplay. Think about the last Bardic Gathering, the actions that so many found offensive were done in the name of roleplay. By not including those who do roleplay by adapting to the rules of roleplay you lose members of the community you are trying to unite.

One of the rules of communication written by Tulga for communication on the roleplaying shard was OOC conversation was allowed providing all parties agree. By keeping the meetings and charter all OOC, you lose the people who just come to play a game, have fun and get lost in their character. Thus you will never unite the shard because you exclude some.

Viz the bolded part of your post, Leannae . . . you have GOT to be kidding, right? Thoroughly disrupting an outing meant to be enjoyed by everyone in the name of "roleplaying." Seems to me that your "right" to roleplay ends where another player's right to enjoy the game begins. And that most certainly was not the case when these alleged "roleplayers" decided to completely disrupt an event that many, many others were enjoying. And continued to do so though repeatedly asked to stop.

Order can use a lot less of that kind of "hard core roleplaying."

[imported_Leannae]

Viz the bolded part of your post, Leannae . . . you have GOT to be kidding, right? Thoroughly disrupting an outing meant to be enjoyed by everyone in the name of "roleplaying." Seems to me that your "right" to roleplay ends where another player's right to enjoy the game begins. And that most certainly was not the case when these alleged "roleplayers" decided to completely disrupt an event that many, many others were enjoying. And continued to do so though repeatedly asked to stop.

Order can use a lot less of that kind of "hard core roleplaying."

Then I suggest the right to enjoy the game superceeds the right to the "Shard" charter so instead of expecting all members of the shard of Order to agree and follow those rules, it should be renamed to Community Movement Charter because I log into a game to play it and enjoy it the way I want to. The only rules that should be upheld are the rules of Tulga.

If I showed up to a meeting and refused to accept OOC chat and complained that open chat was OOC, who has the right to complain? The person following the rules set down by Tulga, not the rules set down bya player.

And please, you've got to be kidding me that you want people who pay to play a game to follow an additional set of rules becausea player decided it was needed? You want to inflict rules, make a guild and run it. But you cannot expect others to follow those rules because you happen to feel the need to take charge.

If you want the entire shard of Order to feel they are part of the community then you need to address all members of Order not just one side of them.If roleplayers irk you that much, (hardcore or not)then you're on the wrong shard. Order is a roleplaying shard and should be promoted as such.

Furthermore, unless you know beyond a shadow of doubt the person is NOT roleplaying, then you are in no place to judge. Tolerance of all styles of roleplay is encouraged by Zideon - Tulga, you have to be tolerant then otherwise you are as guilty as those you complain about.

[Archebold]

Article 3a3) that the Moderator need not continue to recognize any speaker that speaks off the topic of the Report or Agenda Item under discussion and should instead recognize the next speaker. persistant disruption after having been warned by the Moderator is to be struck from the record of the Assembly and referred to the WorldMaster as an act deleterious to the conduct of the play of others.

This sums it up pretty well.

yes Order is a role playing shard, yes role playing is encouraged, no role playing is not manditory, yes mention of anything outside of the confines of the game such as real life current events in open public channels is an example of a violation.

bottom line is whether for the sake of role play or out of character, if a person is speaking out of turn and being disruptive to the meeting which undermines the purpose of the gathering of those that wish to be involved, in the forward progression of the needs of the community, then this article applies.

Roll play is very much a part of Order, role play in your presentation as a recognized speaker that has the floor is all good and well, as long as it doesnt disrupt or derail the topic that is being discussed at the time.

[Tantalyr]

Furthermore, unless you know beyond a shadow of doubt the person is NOT roleplaying, then you are in no place to judge. Tolerance of all styles of roleplay is encouraged by Zideon - Tulga, you have to be tolerant then otherwise you are as guilty as those you complain about.

So, you contend that so long as a player says he is simply "roleplaying" it is perfectly fine for that player to killsteal, grief, scam and disrupt community meetings and events. Did I get that right?