Discussion: The Board Transparency

[Elfdude]

It kind of bugs me that the board votes, the discussion, and especially the board's rationalization for those votes aren't visible to everyone. I'm thinking the votes need to be handled publicly on this forum stickied just as community votes are (albeit only with the board members having votes). I have nothing against any particular board members but the secretive nature of the board makes understanding their votes quite difficult. Further it makes holding the members accountable for their votes hard to accomplish which makes the entire system seem rather arbitrary. I would also like the ability for community members and candidates alike to be able to present their cases to the board if there's something we feel they're overlooking.

What do you guys think? Should the board be transparent? Should the community member's input be a part of the process?

[StealthEvo]

No.

This isn't CDEC. The last thing this community needs is the administration board being bugged/hounded by a bunch of random people that dont meet the criteron that want to play minecraft with us for two days. That can see the no votes being given to them. I can't see that being productive

[Elfdude]

Ok, but why do you think that?

At the very least the minecraft community that has been approved should be able to see it.

[StealthEvo]

They are able to see the important bits. Ie if they get in or not. Theres nothing stopping a successful applicant for asking for an abridged version of their tally (like i did for curiousity) but at the same time the point of being on the board is be impartial. If a friend on the server wants to shift in their 2 post friend, both posts in the new members post here and he can see you voted no for their BEST EVER FRIEND EVA!!!!! Thats going to potentially open a can of worms.

In the spirit of discussion. You've said the lack of transperency bugs you. Apart from the apparent need for the community to observe and comment (which they will, if the community at large happily griefs each other they will comment) what is annoying you about the current system. I can't see any flaws in it. The only way rejected applications are found out about is when the user comes crying. Which is rare since they are normally two posters.

[Dewy]

Should the board be transparent?

No.

Further it makes holding the members accountable for their votes hard to accomplish

Thanks for implying we are corrupt.

[Elfdude]

They are able to see the important bits. Ie if they get in or not.

Those aren't the important bits especially for members who might want to get in later. The rationalization and discussion is very important for this. If anonymity is a problem then we can have an appointed forum member post the discussion in a publicly visible format with name information missing.

Theres nothing stopping a successful applicant for asking for an abridged version of their tally (like i did for curiousity)

So the vote goes through, the vote passes no and the board resists wanting to vote again for some time. Or the vote goes through, new information comes to light or wasn't even evaluated by the board and now we need to wait another five days? Woe be those in power for having to deal with those they have power over.

but at the same time the point of being on the board is be impartial. If a friend on the server wants to shift in their 2 post friend, both posts in the new members post here and he can see you voted no for their BEST EVER FRIEND EVA!!!!! Thats going to potentially open a can of worms.

Alright but on the opposite hand that might not happen at all. In fact you can guard against it (although I doubt the premise) by making the board's discussion anonymous but visible. This isn't difficult to do and I can think of numerous ways that could be implemented automatically as well as via only subtle alterations to the existing structure. We already take care of griefing votes publicly, that has a much greater potential to open a can of worms. In fact this is true for every vote we make.

In the spirit of discussion. You've said the lack of transperency bugs you. Apart from the apparent need for the community to observe and comment (which they will, if the community at large happily griefs each other they will comment) what is annoying you about the current system.

You have an unaccountable board with secret votes controlling the entry into a game which we play for fun. I've gotten all sorts of 'reasons' why the board needs to control entry into the game and I agree with several of them. We do need to prevent those who might want to play one moment then leave the next. We do need to prevent advertisers from gaining access or anonymous individuals at large. However then I see requirements like must be a contributing twcenter member and I wonder how they qualify contributing especially when even with a hundred posts the board cannot be expected to know of every contribution. Ambiguous qualifiers are fine but only when we agree what those qualities we desire are. Further I must question the sense of denying new TWCenter members who are looking for a regular draw to the forum and can find that in minecraft.

I can't see any flaws in it.

I don't understand this. I can think of several flaws off the bat.

Lack of Accountability for poor judgement - This is rather important because it informs us of who should be on the board and who should not be (not that there's anyone who should not be because frankly we don't know do we?)

Lack of Accountability for prejudice and bias - This is rather important because it informs us of who should be on the board and who should not be "" If a person has factors which are being taken into account and shouldn't be there needs to be a way to fix that. What one man sees as contribution another sees as spam.

Lack of Accountability for laziness in evaluation - See above. If a person has factors which should be taken into account they should be.

Lack of Experience with most clients - This is important because it informs the board's decision greatly. We simply cannot expect five people to evaluate a person's contributions even at 100 posts.

These board members are elected are they not? What do you base their selection on? Popularity? Name Recognition? Quality of work? I have to wonder about the last one given we can't see it.

The only way rejected applications are found out about is when the user comes crying. Which is rare since they are normally two posters.

Some of them perhaps. The last 3 applicants in recent memory might disagree.

Thanks for implying we are corrupt.

The implication was made by your perception of my message. I do not hide connotations or implications in my words and speak as plainly as I can. I must question why you feel the need to be defensive when it would require rather little of you to settle this discussion. Instead you're already defensive about discussion. Regardless of whether the board is actually corrupt or not (I highly doubt it is even) that response is simply lacking in maturity. We can talk like adults can't we?

[StealthEvo]

Because i gotta go to work and shizzle. I'll address this one point

Lack of Experience with most clients - This is important because it informs the board's decision greatly. We simply cannot expect five people to evaluate a person's contributions even at 100 posts.

Thats common sense. It's the Total War Center sever. Ergo it's not quite enough to be a registered member. The majority of active current players in either server based of a quick 2 sec look around are Citizens/Artifax's ect ect.

I myself have two cult followings and a minor mod release as well as being a Mod Leader for a total conversion mod. I was personally nervous that I wouldn't get into the server due to what I thought wasn't enough of a contribution (yes considering my work thats a pretty big thing to be afraid of considering at the time it was like 80% citizens)

It's a fair call to say someone with under 200 posts probably doesn't have a great deal of contributions. I make a sweeping generalisation of course. There are always exceptions to DA rules.

But thats my observation.

[Dewy]

You do not have to contribute to TWC to get passed the board

I do not hide connotations or implications in my words

Oh ok thanks for calling us corrupt. Now I'll go be corrupt and send Tyler a pm saying he has been denied access to the TWC minecraft servers.

[Katsumoto]

What the heck are you on about Dewy?

[Dewy]

What the heck are you on about Dewy?

Can you be any more ambiguous? I can't tell you what I am on about if you don't tell me what you don't understand. Come on Kats that's common sense.

[abbews]

What the heck are you on about Dewy?

With that behaviour he should leave the board.

[Inarus]

I have been asked why a person was not let in, I told them and then said what would be the best actions to reapply. This member politely asked me and accepted what I suggested. Hopefully he is trying to contribute more.

Should this member reapply I shall view him even more worthy simply for asking me rather than for getting others to ask for them.

We have all been democratically elected, we all come from a varied background that makes us worthy to judge - writers, modders, etc.

A while ago it took 200 posts to get in and many of us wished for that to be raised - seeing how easy it was to spam this number. Maybe we should have a higher post count demand, I kinda see that as necessary now.

[Dewy]

With that behaviour he should leave the board.

How nice of you.

[Inarus]

You do not have to contribute to TWC to get passed the board.

Arguments based on ignorance, great.



Oh ok thanks for calling us corrupt. Now I'll go be corrupt and send Tyler a pm saying he has been denied access to the TWC minecraft servers.

well said Dewy.

[Visorslash]

Answer for me is no.

I was unknown to all here but Izob when I asked to play here.

[Elfdude]

You do not have to contribute to TWC to get passed the board.

I'm sorry, that's not apparent given the boards decisions happen in secret. I'm not entirely sure why you are throwing the internet equivalent of a temper-tantrum but you're really not doing your side of the argument any favors.

Arguments based on ignorance, great.

Enlighten me, is that not the purpose of discussion or am I misinformed?

Oh ok thanks for calling us corrupt.

Not only are you irrationally defensive you're getting agitated at mere discussion. Don't take this personally, you would expect adults could do that.

Now I'll go be corrupt and send Tyler a pm saying he has been denied access to the TWC minecraft servers.

Do it.

[Dewy]

@Elfdude stop with the condescending posts.

You do not have to contribute to TWC to get passed the board.

I'll elaborate on what I said. The board decides if you are a TWC member or not, you don't have to contribute to TWC to be a TWC member. In other words contributing is a plus but it's not needed.

[Visorslash]

What Dewy said.

[mattgoby]

I think no...

Its a private vot emade by the most senior members if you dont get in knowing who to bare a grudge against [as shamefully this will happen] wont help the community.

Altough i would like to know if anyone said no to me

[Visorslash]

On a more reasonable topic, we have another hotseater here.

IZob, Me, Tonno and now Matt.

We should make a hotseat kingdom.