Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Parsifal

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 79  Next >
1
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Proposed Changes
« on: November 11, 2017, 03:25:26 PM »
I have posted in the relevant thread regarding the amendment to the Manifesto. Regarding the abolition of the ZC, I personally am happy to go ahead with junker's proposal. If anyone has objections, please raise them in this thread. I will not act until either 72 hours have passed with no objections, or any objections raised have been resolved.

I was hoping to avoid bringing this up since it's now mostly resolved, but the EJ incident is the most obvious and most recent example. Because the system is not at all codified and relies on our (usually "your") common sense, it fails as soon as the de facto decision maker thinks that something doesn't require much consideration.

I don't consider this a failure. People have indicated in the past that they do not want to always be consulted on every issue. I'll refer to this thread another time, in which the first page has four different members saying that they do not want a democratic process for choosing moderators. Blanko even goes so far as to say:

I think you're overthinking this and trying to force changes where none are necessary. Do you think our current methods of action are flawed?

As it has been said, this is stemming from internal issues between you and pizaa. Don't blow it out of proportion.

Given that people (other than you, evidently) do not want change, and for as long as that remains the case, I consider it far more important that people have the ability to openly criticise changes as they are made. This is exactly what happened in the case of the "EJ incident". A decision was made that turned out to be a poor one in retrospect, people said they didn't like it, and the issue got resolved.

The spirit of collective decision-making was also further broken in that case when you expressed initial opposition to reverting your decision despite wide opposition.

Can you provide a citation for this claim? As far as my recollection of events goes, this never happened.

Again, you did eventually accept it and moved on, but this once again relied on whether or not you, personally, would be convinced. A simple process for deciding which decisions count as "major" and how to properly approach various class of decisions would both improve clarity of expectations between everyone, and it would remove some of the burden of personal responsibility. See, I really don't want to keep lambasting you over EJ, but in the end of the day it remains a matter of fact that you made the decision unilaterally, and then unilaterally resisted its reversion. What is one to do if next time you're not so easily convinced that something should happen?

Decisions are made "unilaterally" all the time, by anyone who makes substantial contributions. You "unilaterally" decide how to manage our social media presence. junker "unilaterally" decides which threads to split or move into CN. Thus far, I cannot think of a single instance where a poor decision has been made by anyone and could not be resolved within a reasonable timeframe after the fact, in any of these cases. Unless you have a counter-example, that makes this a strictly hypothetical problem.

If your goal is to prevent poor decisions from being made in the first place (it's hard to tell since you haven't suggested any concrete changes), that comes with the inherent trade-off of impeding people in the course of getting things done. Can you imagine yourself trying to maintain our Twitter account if we had to hold a vote on every other account we follow, for instance?

Ultimately, this boils down to you being the first among equals. You have many times stated that this is not your intention, and I do believe you, but you're currently the only person who can press some buttons. If you don't like something, the buttons don't get pressed. If you like something, the buttons do get pressed, even if perhaps they shouldn't. To some extent, this is unresolvable - you'll always have the power to ignore any rules or their spirit by virtue of being the site owner. However, my personal impression of your character is that you generally wouldn't consciously do that. So, all we need is a little bit of guidance for whoever may be in charge of a particular decision. Perhaps that guidance should be a teeny-tiny bit binding. That's all.

I am not opposed to such an idea in principle, I simply do not believe it is necessary, or that most people want it (based on the thread we've both been referencing). If others are in agreement with Pete here, please do speak up.

I did come up with a good plan for how the leadership council could be reorganized and democratic system could work for this society, based on the failings of how the Zetetic Council was set up. I described it here: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4291.0

It will take some technical work and management duties. I don't mind working on it with someone, but don't want to feel alone on this.

I had somehow missed that this would infer voting rights on members last time I skimmed the thread. I only recalled it being about a membership register.

The problem I foresee here is that the democratic process in a volunteer community only really works once someone has already committed to undertaking a task. This is why I think the current democracy/"do-ocracy" hybrid system here works well. Smaller decisions are made by the people doing the work, and when larger decisions need to be made, they are brought to an informal vote. That is, votes are always on questions of "is this thing I'm already working on acceptable?" and not "do we want someone to work on a thing?".

If we change that so that we give the membership body the power to command that certain tasks be undertaken, all that's going to happen is that the outcome of voting will be ignored if nobody is interested in doing the work. That is one reason I believe the ZC fizzled out; there were a few occasions when a vote was taken to do some work, but when it came to the crunch nobody wanted to do it.

2
I let this slide, sorry. If there are no objections raised within 24 hours from now, I will make this change to the Manifesto.

3
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Proposed Changes
« on: November 08, 2017, 09:43:30 AM »
I won't have much time to do anything concrete with this until the weekend. Some thoughts:

1) The manifesto requires an update under T&C section 1 to correctly reflect a name for amendment authorization.

I wrote up an amendment for this 2 years ago which I then forgot to actually apply. Is this wording still ok with everyone?

2) Dissolution of the Zetetic Council. Parsifal has already noted elsewhere that the council is essentially dead, so I am proposing to dissolve it.

Aligning with #2 would be the removal of the "Zetetic Council Board," as it would no longer be needed. Additionally, the council currently has moderation ability over the forum "Earth Not a Globe Workshop." I propose this also be removed and delegated to standard forum moderation, with the exception that active members of that forum (such as Tom Bishop) should be able to maintain moderation ability if they desire it.

Not that the council has done anything regarding decision making for the society (the most recent post is almost two years old), but that function should return to the standard democratic process we use for the forum.

Agree, but I think this should be put to a popular vote.

I support the principle, but I believe it should come together with a write up on decision-making. I think it's fair to say that someone will have to facilitate the democratic process, even if they themselves happen to have little power otherwise. Dissolving the ZC is a no-brainer, but there's no point in just half-fixing the system.

Do you think there is a problem with the current system? It seems to be working quite well from my point of view, so I would resist any such change as overengineering. Not everything needs to be codified in a document if things are working just fine without one.

I see dissolving the ZC as essentially a no-op, given how little they do. It changes nothing about how we make decisions.

4
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Just Watched
« on: November 05, 2017, 09:49:33 AM »
watched 2/3 of passengers last night.  i'll write up some thoughts on it when i finish, but for the moment i'm kinda surprised at how much hate this movie got.  i think it's pretty good so far.  it's a really fun "what would i do/how would i handle this" watch.

now to be sure, i'd have directed this movie way differently.  but that's not really a criticism of the film.  my only real beef with it is the manufactured tension in the climax.  it goes on for way too long.

i'd have shot this movie from aurora's point of view.  she wakes up, has no idea what's going on, and suddenly this mysterious guy shows up and the story goes from there.  she doesn't know what his motives are, if he's telling the truth about anything, what he's been up to all alone on the ship for so long, etc.  then maybe she gets some clues that he's lying to her about stuff, maximum tension ensues.  could've been a sweet thriller-ish scifi flick.

Just watched this, p. much agree.

I also found the actual "there I fixed it" moment was very simplistic and straightforward for how much tension there was built up before it. I'd much rather they started finding clues and investigating the problem themselves for a while, rather than having a random crew member wake up and be like "yeah this isn't supposed to happen". They go from "shit there's a problem" to "oh no there's a hole in the ship" way too fast.

That said, I probably wouldn't recommend it very highly. There are plenty of better space films. The main nice thing about this one is the atmosphere rather than the plot itself, but as garygreen says, the sustained tension makes even that a little overbearing.

On the whole, my biggest problem is that the trailer is an outright lie about the film's contents. If you're interested in the basic premise of people waking up prematurely on a century-long space voyage, then watch it, but don't believe anything more than that from the trailer.

5
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Star Citizen
« on: November 04, 2017, 06:51:11 AM »
How long do you reckon the current vision of the game has been in development? 2-3 years?

Sounds about right.

Because I know when they first started their kickstarter it didn't have even close to the scope that it has now. It could take 4 more years to fully build this bitch out with all of the things they're trying to do. But if they succeed you'll never want to play any other game.

Honestly, it's very difficult to predict future development time because the kind of development remaining after 3.0 gets released is very different from the kind of development done so far.

The reason 3.0 is taking so long is that they are developing the groundwork that will be required to introduce features more rapidly later. An example is their internal tool for creating star systems. Just a couple of years ago they had to position everything manually within CryEngine, which really wasn't designed to handle maps larger than a planet. Now they've done the work to make that easy for designers to do rapidly with a simple UI that automatically handles things like orbital mechanics, using the Stanton system (the only one now playable) as a testbed, which means that future star systems will be done much more quickly than this first one.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter so much how long it takes to create the final game, as they've announced their intention to deliver more regular updates to the alpha after the 3.0 release. I think of it more as something that will gradually improve until it has all the features they want, rather than something that I'm waiting for the completion of. Because you're right, that could take years, but in the meantime we have a playable alpha that will continue to get better with time.

6
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Star Citizen
« on: November 02, 2017, 08:19:06 PM »
Out of curiosity, how much have you actually spent on this game?

Let's just say that $350 is on the wrong order of magnitude for Rushy.

7
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Renewed FES merger talks
« on: November 01, 2017, 12:17:29 AM »
Excelsior John has graciously accepted a position as our official negotiator in exchange for release from Purgatory, effective immediately. I will be removing myself from these talks as I feel that my own strategy has left us treading water.

Welcome to the team, EJ!

8
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Star Citizen
« on: October 28, 2017, 09:23:23 PM »
Did you experience unparalled immersion?

No, idiot. That happens in the game, not the convention.
Just got to play 3.0 for a bit. Fuck yeah.

Even in 3.0, the immersion is still paralled. The process of making it unparalled is what keeps delaying the full release.

9
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Star Citizen
« on: October 28, 2017, 09:05:30 PM »
Did you experience unparalled immersion?

No, idiot. That happens in the game, not the convention.

10
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Star Citizen
« on: October 28, 2017, 05:02:43 PM »
Just got home from CitizenCon. It was okay, but not great. It wouldn't have been worth the trip if I didn't live so close to Frankfurt, so I probably won't be going to next year's in LA.

11
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Star Citizen
« on: October 28, 2017, 09:36:06 AM »
Here's some videos that everyone should watch:

You forgot the best one.


12
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Star Citizen
« on: October 27, 2017, 07:30:16 PM »
Last panel finished. Only the keynote left now. Yes, I know how retarded finishing with a keynote sounds, I didn't write the programme.

13
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Star Citizen
« on: October 27, 2017, 04:24:27 PM »
Join me at https://twitch.tv/starcitizen. The opening address is 52 minutes late and counting, so who knows when it will start.

Linguistic autism panel up next. You won't want to miss this.

14
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Star Citizen
« on: October 27, 2017, 02:58:59 PM »
Just got to play 3.0 for a bit. Fuck yeah.

15
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Star Citizen
« on: October 27, 2017, 01:52:18 PM »
Join me at https://twitch.tv/starcitizen. The opening address is 52 minutes late and counting, so who knows when it will start.

16
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Star Citizen
« on: October 27, 2017, 01:28:20 PM »
Intel is now in on the scam. They're releasing a new model of SSD, and if you buy it, you get a limited edition ship in Star Citizen.


17
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Star Citizen
« on: October 27, 2017, 12:41:07 PM »
Wait, 350 real life dollars? For a spaceship in a videogame? Are you mad?

You should see what Rushy has spent.

18
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Star Citizen
« on: October 27, 2017, 12:24:47 PM »
... and waiting in the long as fuck queue to get inside. Wonder how long this'll take.

19
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Star Citizen
« on: October 27, 2017, 12:14:11 PM »
Just got checked into my hotel. Now heading over to ShitizenCon.

20
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Star Citizen
« on: October 27, 2017, 12:26:08 AM »
I'm leaving for the airport to go to CitizenCon in about 6 hours. Should be a fun time.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 79  Next >