<
Anything else

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Anything else
#1
What worked last time, what didn't work, any ideas for the new round.
Chief Admin

Si vis pacem, para bellum  - "If you want peace, prepare for war"
Reply
Thanks given by:
#2
I'd like to be frank... this round kicked off with bold promises that weren't delivered on and when there was feedback shared it was received with hostility. That's not conducive to a vibrant player base. I think this round tried to be too much. We're a small community, and I think back to basics is what's best - don't overly-complicate the game.

I'd suggest scrapping the 4-year pre-game. It didn't work and the result was little impact on the game moving forward. I also don't think the factions system works. Again - back to basics, scrap it.

Oh, and I have another thing to say: AVs need to stay out of party discussions.

Unless the Party Advisor is asked for direction or advice, the thing I found the most frustrating in this round was the AVs jumping into party discussions and telling us that our decisions were wrong or not accurate for what RL so-and-so would have done. It's an alternate reality game. Let us form our party ideology, policies and approach without interference.
William D. Blumenthal
Conservative | Solihull (1970 - Present)
Shadow First Secretary of State | Shadow Foreign Secretary
Leader, Selsdon Group
Former Secretary of State for Industry and Trade (1972-1974)
Reply
Thanks given by: Sir Dylan Macmillan
#3
If i can respond to some of this.

We accept that the pre-round went on for far too long then it should have done. In future, regardless of IF we have a pre round in this new round (still with me? lol) , then it will not be long at all, in fact i really dont think there would be a pre round. 

In terms of complexity, i do agree that things got a bit complicated. We will make an effort to keep it simple moving forward. 

Regarding party discussions, i also get that. The point i have on this is that AVs are in the chats in case things get out of hand or if theres an issue. I think the party advisor and a backup should be in party discussions , the backup if the party advisor has gone AWOL for example. I do agree we shouldnt jump in unwarranted and moving forward we wont jump in unless we feel we need to (ie: a row escalating, going bat crazy etc etc)
Chief Admin

Si vis pacem, para bellum  - "If you want peace, prepare for war"
Reply
Thanks given by:
#4
Okay boys and girls gather around. I'm going to excite you all with the most interesting topic of all: governance.

[Image: giphy.webp]

I think that PolUK, and the A-Team (and its relationship with the players) has suffered over the last few rounds because there is no clear line of accountability, no understanding of who is "in charge" and limited recourse for players. In my opinion, the A-Team (including the ones I was on) has become paralyzed by a lack of strategic direction and occasionally poor relationships with players.

I think that comes down to the fact that people have different ideas about who "owns" the game and therefore who has responsibility for making sure that it works. In practice, Ian owns the game because he owns the domain and hosts the forums. But the game itself is, in my view, collectively the product of its players. Therefore I think we need a setup that -

[*] recognises that players are ultimately in charge; 
[*] gives AVs the ability to act and operate independently of that, to provide players with the experience they want;
[*] establishes a clear line of accountability and responsibility for the players: if there's a fuck up, who is going to fix it?

At the moment, we don't have a setup that does any of these things. Establishing the PAC was, originally I think, an attempt to assert the first of these. But I didn't work for reasons let's not go into now. In its place, I think we need something along the lines of what was the setup in PolUK until a few years ago with a few changes.

1. A Chief Admin (or if you like, a Deputy Acting Chief Administrator). Right now the A-Team tries to act in constant consensus. Constant consensus is fine, but there is no way for a difficult decision to just get made. So those difficult things sometimes just don't happen or happen after a lot of argument. Further to this, players often go to different AVs with different problems. I think PolUK needs a Chief Admin to take on the role that Ian played. In the past, Ian would not involve himself too much in party politics but instead focussed on -
A) Player interaction and relationships;
B) Filling in gaps;
C) A-Team Management: hiring and firing, and making decisions
D) Making sure shit got done;
E) Complaints management.

I don't think we should appoint someone permanently, but instead every form of the A-Team should have a Chief Admin who acts in this manner: I think there is possibly a case for players having some input on that, but I'm not sure how (you can't really elect someone). 

2. A prefect system, as an informal advisory council, of former AVs in the playerbase. They have no formal constitution or authority, but act as a way of alerting the A-Team to any issues or offering counsel - and applying pressure if something is going really poorly.

3. A Terms of Service agreed by the playerbase. That should set out what AVs should and are expected do. We already have one we can work from the base of. But I think it should remove the ability of the privy council to remove members of the A-Team. Instead, that role should be within a Chief Admin who has an overall "guardianship" role for the game.

Personally - I think that's enough. It gives us the three points above I think we need: players have a clear route for complaint and accountability. The A-Team is able to act more independently with someone in charge providing that oversight and direction, as well as that relationship with players.
Rt. Hon. Lt. Col. Sean Manning MP
Prime Minister & Leader of the Labour Party
Labour MP for Glasgow Garscadden (1974 - )
Labour MP for Glasgow Scotstoun (1966 - 1974)

"We must be clear about this; it does mean, if this is the idea, the end of Britain as an independent European state. I make no apology for repeating it. It means the end of a thousand years of history. You may say: Let it end. But, my goodness, it is a decision that needs a little care and thought." - Hugh Gaitskell on the EEC
Reply
Thanks given by: Sir Dylan Macmillan
#5
Considering what you say, William, do you think a shift to the present day in terms of timeline would make it easier to work with a smaller player base?
Reply
Thanks given by:
#6
I have another point I think it is important to make.

It is my strong opinion that the A Team urgently needs new blood, and that members of the team that have not found themselves able to devote the time to meet the terms of service should step aside to let this happen. I'm not pointing any any particular person: but the turn of the round has always traditionally been the point at which AVs have made way to let that happen and it feels like it isn't happening this time for some reason.

But it would be unrealistic if we were not to accept that inconsistent and low activity from our A-Team was not a major contributing factor to this round coming to an end. It was not the only one. But I think it would be a mistake to not enter a new round (or even to put one together) with a re-invigorated team. Rick has already made that choice and I think it is the right one: he has done great work (i.e. on the election) but fully accepts he has not had the time or energy to devote recently.
Rt. Hon. Lt. Col. Sean Manning MP
Prime Minister & Leader of the Labour Party
Labour MP for Glasgow Garscadden (1974 - )
Labour MP for Glasgow Scotstoun (1966 - 1974)

"We must be clear about this; it does mean, if this is the idea, the end of Britain as an independent European state. I make no apology for repeating it. It means the end of a thousand years of history. You may say: Let it end. But, my goodness, it is a decision that needs a little care and thought." - Hugh Gaitskell on the EEC
Reply
#7
(09-11-2017, 08:35 PM)Lt. Col. Sean Manning Wrote: I have another point I think it is important to make.

It is my strong opinion that the A Team urgently needs new blood, and that members of the team that have not found themselves able to devote the time to meet the terms of service should step aside to let this happen. I'm not pointing any any particular person: but the turn of the round has always traditionally been the point at which AVs have made way to let that happen and it feels like it isn't happening this time for some reason.

But it would be unrealistic if we were not to accept that inconsistent and low activity from our A-Team was not a major contributing factor to this round coming to an end. It was not the only one. But I think it would be a mistake to not enter a new round (or even to put one together) with a re-invigorated team. Rick has already made that choice and I think it is the right one: he has done great work (i.e. on the election) but fully accepts he has not had the time or energy to devote recently.

I wholeheartedly agree with Steve on this. We all love this game very much, but this round did not have the structure or dedication that was needed. And that's not a slight on any member of the A-Team.

I think another AV with Rick's departure is needed. And I think it needs to be someone who commits the time up front and delivers. I found it worked well to have someone in another time zone outside of UK time as it allowed them to work with other players in the same situation and for nearly "round the clock" coverage for things.
William D. Blumenthal
Conservative | Solihull (1970 - Present)
Shadow First Secretary of State | Shadow Foreign Secretary
Leader, Selsdon Group
Former Secretary of State for Industry and Trade (1972-1974)
Reply
Thanks given by:
#8
Frankly I agree with Steve. With literally one or two exceptions the A-Team were found lacking in the last round in my opinion. Obviously I don't know about Government business but I have it on good authority that CS Qs went unanswered, meetings went unattended for stretches. We had like, 3 months IG last round and not one single poll. The pre-round devolved into a mess with A-Team decisions that smacked of one AV acting, not telling other AVs and then the rest of the team, and the players were left scrambling to catch up before the whole thing was retconned. I think there are fundamental issues in the A-Team that need to be addressed before the new round, to be honest they should have been addressed before the new round was even conceived.

Rick recognising that he can't continue to commit the time outside of at election times is a good first step, but we need significant further progress on activity, decision making and accountability otherwise this round will just follow the last one down the toilet.

Reply
Thanks given by:
#9
(09-11-2017, 08:48 PM)Sir Dylan Macmillan Wrote: Frankly I agree with Steve. With literally one or two exceptions the A-Team were found lacking in the last round in my opinion. Obviously I don't know about Government business but I have it on good authority that CS Qs went unanswered, meetings went unattended for stretches. We had like, 3 months IG last round and not one single poll. The pre-round devolved into a mess with A-Team decisions that smacked of one AV acting, not telling other AVs and then the rest of the team, and the players were left scrambling to catch up before the whole thing was retconned. I think there are fundamental issues in the A-Team that need to be addressed before the new round, to be honest they should have been addressed before the new round was even conceived.

Rick recognising that he can't continue to commit the time outside of at election times is a good first step, but we need significant further progress on activity, decision making and accountability otherwise this round will just follow the last one down the toilet.

We can also point to the Tory Selsdon group leadership election, which went undealt with until we took matters in our own hands. AVs who take responsibility for these issues need to deliver, and a backup should be in place if someone is away.
William D. Blumenthal
Conservative | Solihull (1970 - Present)
Shadow First Secretary of State | Shadow Foreign Secretary
Leader, Selsdon Group
Former Secretary of State for Industry and Trade (1972-1974)
Reply
#10
I was browsing through the 'Awards' section and noticed this "Constituency Champion" category - are there currently such things as constituency offices? Can we have them? (or, in case I'm asking the wrong question, can someone explain how would that work?)
Reply
Thanks given by:
#11
As a community, I think we should maybe step back after this slower round and try to be more about the Pol than the UK. Let me explain.

How many times are we going to keep fast forwarding or going back to different times and different rounds in the same country? I understand that the UK is vastly familiar to everyone here. But after a slower round that ground to a halt, for the most part, I think there needs to be a radical new way of thinking - if we focus on building a strong AV team along many of the suggestions provided here and maybe even loop in players to help create the next round, we should play the next round in a different real world country.

That's what I mean when I say that we should focus more on the political simulation aspect and not so much a British polsim aspect. It expands and opens things up to new and fresh possibilities. For example, in the UK sims, I'm a *huge* fan for playing eras after 2000. That's my preference. But how many times have we played that era? It's been played to death. Older eras run the risk of having similar fates as the 70s round.

I think we should consider for one round, being a different country. We could do PolCan. We could do PolAus. Just something different, in a more modern/recent era. If it doesn't work, we go back to a UK sim. I'm just saying, we should consider new scenarios to not just energize those who play here regularly, but possibly even attract more people. It gives AVs and players more scenarios and more possibilities.

Just a thought.

And I'm not implying we should remain playing a different country. Just opening up to doing that once in a while to change things up and provide more variety.
Charlotte Rennoll
Conservative
Shadow President of the Board of Trade, Chief Whip
MP for the City of London and Westminster
Selsdon Group
Reply
Thanks given by: Frank Kornacki (GRN)
#12
This is an interesting idea. As the resident Canadian, I would totally welcome a PolCan round. The infrastructure exists here on the board, the Parliamentary system is essentially the same (add clapping and some French, you're all set). Plus, 1997 Canada was a hot mess of a Parliament with five parties holding official party status. Something for everyone.

(09-11-2017, 06:57 PM)Charles Millar-Moir Wrote: Considering what you say, William, do you think a shift to the present day in terms of timeline would make it easier to work with a smaller player base?

Charles, I apologise for missing your question to me. I'm not sure how I feel about present day (ie 2017). We quickly get ahead of world events and lose the ability to have clear facts and figures to deal with various issues.
William D. Blumenthal
Conservative | Solihull (1970 - Present)
Shadow First Secretary of State | Shadow Foreign Secretary
Leader, Selsdon Group
Former Secretary of State for Industry and Trade (1972-1974)
Reply
Thanks given by: Frank Kornacki (GRN)
#13
1997 Canada to me sounds like a blast.
Charlotte Rennoll
Conservative
Shadow President of the Board of Trade, Chief Whip
MP for the City of London and Westminster
Selsdon Group
Reply
Thanks given by:
#14
I'm not really interested in Canada personally. The problem with this round was clear and notin my view a structural issue from which there is no escape if there are changes in the composition and activity of the A Team.
Rt. Hon. Lt. Col. Sean Manning MP
Prime Minister & Leader of the Labour Party
Labour MP for Glasgow Garscadden (1974 - )
Labour MP for Glasgow Scotstoun (1966 - 1974)

"We must be clear about this; it does mean, if this is the idea, the end of Britain as an independent European state. I make no apology for repeating it. It means the end of a thousand years of history. You may say: Let it end. But, my goodness, it is a decision that needs a little care and thought." - Hugh Gaitskell on the EEC
Reply
Thanks given by: William Blumenthal
#15
(09-12-2017, 08:43 PM)Lt. Col. Sean Manning Wrote: I'm not really interested in Canada personally. The problem with this round was clear and notin my view a structural issue from which there is no escape if there are changes in the composition and activity of the A Team.

I mean, as a Canadian... up yours! But yes, I have to agree with your sentiment. I have not seen a real public admission from the A-Team collectively for the mistakes of this round (and there were, frankly, many). Wholesale change on that side is needed for this game to progress. It's why I won't be playing because I don't see that commitment to that very necessary action.
William D. Blumenthal
Conservative | Solihull (1970 - Present)
Shadow First Secretary of State | Shadow Foreign Secretary
Leader, Selsdon Group
Former Secretary of State for Industry and Trade (1972-1974)
Reply
Thanks given by:
#16
(09-12-2017, 08:46 PM)William Blumenthal Wrote:
(09-12-2017, 08:43 PM)Lt. Col. Sean Manning Wrote: I'm not really interested in Canada personally. The problem with this round was clear and notin my view a structural issue from which there is no escape if there are changes in the composition and activity of the A Team.

I mean, as a Canadian... up yours! But yes, I have to agree with your sentiment. I have not seen a real public admission from the A-Team collectively for the mistakes of this round (and there were, frankly, many). Wholesale change on that side is needed for this game to progress. It's why I won't be playing because I don't see that commitment to that very necessary action.

Seconded on the point of not playing without serious structural changes. Appointing Morgan is another step in the right direction, but there are clear structural issues that run deeper than one hiring and they must be addressed urgently.

Also, on the point about Canada/Australia, I would be tentatively supporting of that in the future, but probably not now in terms of sending PolUK on hiatus and bringing in PolAus/PolCan/PolUSA

Reply
Thanks given by:
#17
On this point, the A team will be releasing a statement tomorrow (which is in progress) addressing the last round, what happened and we will of course acknowledge our role in all of this.
Chief Admin

Si vis pacem, para bellum  - "If you want peace, prepare for war"
Reply
Thanks given by: Sir Dylan Macmillan
#18
Alternatively (if we definitely want to move away from the UK as a whole for a round - which I personally feel a bit uncomfortable with), we can try PolScotland?
Reply
Thanks given by:


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)