How to Successfully Revive Game Franchises

[Nalates]

But the concept is similar to "Nalates's Approved Good Idea List" in your Progressing URU thread where you have made a list of all the ideas which you think are good.

Actually that misrepresents the Planning Uru thread’s list I made. There are ideas in the list I think are poor ideas. Nor was it a list of my ideas but those contributed by various people in the thread. As I wrote in posting the list, some were reworded or omitted because I couldn’t condense them into a short pithy sentence or two. There was no selection or approval effort. It is a simple collection. It is not even a recommended list. So, there is no comparison to your proposal to have a council approve ages for a package.

Semplerfi, succinctly points out the problem I have with the idea you initially proposed of having a selected group approve or select ages for inclusion in a basic shard. I can’t say it any better than he did.

[Stucuk]

Actually that misrepresents the Planning Uru thread’s list I made

You stated that you were only putting positive ideas on the list. Your definition of positive ideas. My point was that you were making a decision as to what ideas you thought were more positive than others, where other people may disagree with your decision.

Semplerfi, succinctly points out the problem I have with the idea you initially proposed of having a selected group approve or select ages for inclusion in a basic shard. I can’t say it any better than he did.

The way around the problem of people not accepting a group of people's decisions is to have people from what are already accepted developers. Thats the whole key to the idea. If you get people who are already accepted by people as developers of URU(Some who for example will be making decisions as to CWE's future at some stage) then people are far more likely to accept there decisions as to what goes into a community PRP pack. If you have a bunch of people who are not developing URU then no one would likely respect there decisions because they are not involved in any way shape or form in the creation of ages/cwe/etc.

[Nalates]

You stated that you were only putting positive ideas on the list.

No… I said I putting them a positive frame. I never said only positive ideas. You misunderstood. It isn’t saying only ideas that are positive. It is a statement about how the wording is phrased.

I’m going to paraphrase the ideas presented herein. I am attempting to frame them in positive statements. The point is to make the ideas more usable. If I missed your idea/point, don’t take it personally, just correct me and expand your idea/point. If I omitted your idea, it is an oversight. Point it out. Also, I’m leaving out the negatives, why something may not work. […]

If the highlighted sentence is what makes you think I’m leaving out ideas, you mis-inferred my meaning. For instance, there are many posts in the thread about why adding a currency system is not a good idea. I omitted those. I omitted the reasons against currency but included the currency idea.

The way around the problem of people not accepting a group of people's decisions is to have people from what are already accepted developers.

I understand you think that. What Zardos, semplerfi and I have tried to convey to you is that doesn’t work in this community.

If you get people who are already accepted by people as developers of URU(Some who for example will be making decisions as to CWE's future at some stage) then people are far more likely to accept there decisions as to what goes into a community PRP pack.

You haven’t noticed that we already have problems with who is writing what code and reviewing which code and how it is to be managed?

That is not a convincing argument. More likely does not eliminate the problem.

It is very likely that a group of none contributors will get more blow back than a group of contributors. But, the disrespect (that is a noun) is for any group attempting to make any decision for the community or even giving the APPEARANCE of doing so. It just doesn’t matter who does the ‘approval’, ‘filtering’, ‘selecting’, or whatever verb one chooses. If it is a group, even Cyan, there will be a problem.

Unless you have some new convincing points… I’m unconvinced and I don’t see this moving forward.

[Stucuk]

If the highlighted sentence is what makes you think I’m leaving out ideas, you mis-inferred my meaning.

No matter how you word it you made a decision as to what ideas that were posted should go into the list and what constitutes as a positive "Frame". The point is you went by your definition. Im trying to show you that people always make decisions as to the definition of things all the time which other people will not always agree with.

You haven’t noticed that we already have problems with who is writing what code and reviewing which code and how it is to be managed?

Which are slowly being resolved. Its more to do with the fact that Cyan picked one group to give the source code which then makes others feel rejected by the looks of things. Which is why the concept was to get people from every corner of the development, so no "group" would be left out. If you made it so its just OpenURU people for example then your dooms day scenario would be correct, but i don't see a group made up which represents all parties having the same reaction.

The main problem i see is would everyone involved be able to work effectively together, rather than the public reaction to any decisions.

[Nalates]

I really can't believe you are going to try and tell me what I did and what I meant... Did you think about that before you wrote it?

[JWPlatt]

Please regain focus and the topic.

[Stucuk]

Did you think about that before you wrote it?

I never thought you would become defensive over nothing. All i have ever been stating is that you made a definition as to what you constituted as a positive statement*. A council would approve ages based on there definition of what is acceptable to them. With both you can have a situation where people do no agree with that definition. With both nothing is forced on anyone.

*im going by "I am attempting to frame them in positive statements." which to me states that you wrote the post and made a definition as to what you constituted as a Positive Statement which may not be the same definition as other peoples. I don't see any other way as to how that line can be interpreted.

Please regain focus and the topic.

It may be a good idea to split every post that relates to the council idea into a separate thread and lock it.