United Servers
 

This is just a small idea I came up with, wondering what people think about it.

With the introduction of some new "global" resources (i.e., GDT, more involvement by Stefan), I think it wouldn't be a bad idea having some consensus of what the right thing to do with them. At least, consensus would be the first step towards convincing the higher powers to act on a specific issue.

Questioning who should be queried to reach a consensus… I think there are two plausible options: every player individually, or every server.

In a model where every player is individually asked their opinion, this would easily have the best representation of what the players want – since everyone would be asked. However, the practicality of this model is very low; arguments would inevitably break out and verdicts would rarely be reached.

To increase practicality, the model would instead be formed around units that can represent large amounts of player opinion… naturally, servers fit in fairly well. Also, with a decision reached by the servers themselves, there is more likelihood for the servers to actual follow through with any outcomes of the decision. More importantly, a server being central to the model also gives a large opinion to developers, who are considered a major part of this game and its eventual state.




This server model raises up a few issues: how much should each server's opinion weigh in making a decision?; should involvement in this organization be mandatory for all servers?; and, who would represent the server?

I think an attempt to directly correlate weight with "average population" or a similar metric, would introduce a motive for servers to inflate their population to boost their influence…. Instead, I think we should use the "listed" servers as a clean break between a high vote and a low vote. Any listed servers (hosted, classic, gold) would get the high vote, while any non-listed servers (UC) would get the low vote. Precise quantification of the high vs. low vote would need to take into account the number of servers and number of players usually on non-listed servers; I imagine something like a high:4 and low:1 vote would be close to what we need, although this is definitely open to further discussion.

Regarding the mandatory attendance of servers, let us speculate what would happen if it was not mandatory… likely, there would be some interest by some of the major servers and a few minor servers. However, due to a likely slow moving process (because of the nature, as well as the few resources currently available), interest would fade after not too long. This fading interest would have a terrible effect on any future prospects of the organization.

With a mandatory attendance (with the threat of losing or not being able to achieve listed status, and/or other consequences), there would likely be high server involvement, and thusly well-represented consensus.

Another issue would be the representation of servers. Naturally the manager would be the obvious choice, but it is possible the manager wouldn't have an adequate feel of the player opinion. Similarly, the manager may not have an adequate feel for the developer opinion. But, I think naturally it will become in the interest of the manager to fulfill this role, since as time progresses it is the player's choice what server he or she plays on. An unrepresented or misrepresented server would likely be an unenjoyable one.




There are other things that would need to be fleshed out, but I'd like to know what people think of the general idea and whether a consensus is needed and/or would be useful. Even those who are skeptical of the higher powers doing anything at all, do you agree that if we were even to approach such a scenario that we would want a good plan?

By servers I meant playerworlds, I thought there wouldn't be any ambiguity.

I still think this would be a good idea.

Saying server is still completely valid, they're interchangeable. I'm not really sure what Hell Raven is talking about.

Anyways, this is all fine to say, but the GDT has a leader. What would be the point of having one if you're going to have the servers decide what to do with the GDT?

So you want a democratic union or republic of servers to make decisions on Graal? As interesting as that sounds, and as much as I endorse those philosophies, I'm sure it's never going to happen.

These decisions shouldn't directly drive the PWA, GDT, or Stefan to do anything.

It is only more information, and when making decisions, the information of "what all the servers want and will stand behind" is pretty useful.

If you want a real-world parallel, think the UN general assembly.

Probably not the greatest example.

tl;dr

wanna give me the spark-notes edition?

He wants a Graal version of the UN General Assembly.

Except I actually flesh out some of the ideas and potential issues, yeah.


Also, this is incredibly ironic considering your long-winded blog posts.

Didja do it to make yourself feel good, or to make a change? If you want change, you'll give the spark-notes.

I had thought it was part of the job description of the GDT to represent the community's interests as far as development goes (feature requests, standards). What kind of decisions would be made by this organization you're proposing? Either I missed it in the OP or you didn't make it clear.

Also what is this more involvement from Stefan that you're talking about, have I missed something?

The only methods the GDT have of gauging community interest is viewing forum posts and talking to players or staff individually.

The point of the organization is to accurately gauge community interest, especially the voices of people who are usually ignored but could easily have a huge stake in the future of Graal (such as UC servers, actual players, etc.).

This would be making the GDT's job easier.


Regarding Stefan involvement, he has been around here a lot more because of iPhone, and we still have time to work in v6 improvements.

Excellent idea.

The real trouble will be finding the right implementation

It's quite a good idea to have a kind of assembly, leading to a consensus of the community interest. I don't really know how to elaborate on that but, as Adam said, the only issue here would be to find how it would be implemented.

I completely agree with it though, and it would sure help the community in general, and maybe answer the biggest questions out here.

Perhaps a public to read, private to write forum, for playerworld owners/managers. Discussion threads for issues that arise, or should be dealt with, and at the end, close the discussion and open up a poll for voting. Perhaps a time limit on some of these to ensure things keep moving along smoothly. And perhaps penalties for too many missed votes.

Community interest in what?

Give some examples of what this organization would be used for.