Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Hatzinger 07-28-04, 04:10 AM	@all: The senate does not seem to be working at the moment. It has lost my and maybe your trust because of the quarrelling and i, personally, mostly skip the posts of the senate-members now. As i can not see any reason for its existance in this current state, (and do not understand the concept of a senate ruling over other players. What did they think? That a few knew the rules better than all others?) i hereby start an open poll on how many of you all think that this senate/quarrel-thing should be replaced by open polls, which we ALL have the chance of taking part in. I suggest to make every COCO player with at least one character and who has been part of the COCO for at least two weeks a senate-member. We all should have the same rights. And at the moment it seems that we have to use them to keep the COCO going. We should take some pressure away from the current "elders" and give them the possibility to relax once again, when they do no longer have to define the future of the COCO with their few votes. So please, post your opinion on the senate. Do you think that itīs concept in its current form is working? Do you think that something has to be done? Do you want to reduce the quarrelling? Do you want to reduce the dependance of the COCO on single votes, rather than common agreement? Vote here. Please include your vote in your post: A - keep the senate as it is. I donīt want to concern myself with such things. B - we all should decide how we play. And right now, the senate seems to be nonfunctioning and therefore should be repaired.
Hatzinger 07-28-04, 04:11 AM	I vote B, of course. Lets make this thing more transparent!
Druid Roxors 07-28-04, 04:22 AM	Vote A1/2: Making the senate more like the house of commons will only create month-long discussions and results would come from some individuals who are not well versed in the rulles of the game. Perhaps a "Players with 6+ months of experience and characters level 10+" or something like that would produce the necesary diversity while staying well versed on rules and quick to react. I believe the current state of the Senate is nothing more than a heated dispute taken too far. Just let it settle for a while. Btw: Polls should only be started by the elders :P
Hatzinger 07-28-04, 04:29 AM	I HOPE that it settles down. But i FEAR that they are all so much personally involved that it would be hard for them to arrange. I fear that it would result in one of them leaving the COCO. The resulting peace would have a bad taste. And i try to avoid that. Its good that you speak of a neccessary diversity in the senate. Thatīs my core point.
Druid Roxors 07-28-04, 04:51 AM	IMO, If anything should be changed in the ammount of seats on the senate I would set a maximum of 11 (so that they are not even). Im thinking something along the lines of the UN's Security Council. 5 permanent memebers + X temporary members randomly selected or Voted upon by the populace.
Pittbull 07-28-04, 04:54 AM	At the moment I do not want to give a vote on this topic, but as druid said, it's realy necessary to put in prerequesites for a senate-member. Having at least one ECL 10-character, who is active, sounds not bad. @ALL Elders: Please stop fighting, we are here to have fun! BTW is there a possiblisty to get an offical announcement of WotC in the wildshape-discussion. Cat, I realy like your idea of balancing the CoCo, but what do you want to do, when druids and casters get more experienced. Later they get the spell "shapechange" and then you have no chance at all, beside using the antimagic field, wish or miracle.
Dawnlord 07-28-04, 05:48 AM	B I don't think that discussions settle down ever. Since I'm here this is a permanent ambient noise. Just the topics vary. And it SUCKS A LOT ! First of all: We shouldn't mix up things! 1. Core Rule Interpretations like about the feather whip token or wilded armor. 2. CoCo gaming rules like pre-mem ALL spells. Let the members make the 1. point in 1-week open votes. Those who care WILL vote. Let the GMs make the 2. point. There is plenty of space for them to balance the CoCo through environmental rules. Just discuss it behind curtains, please. Originally posted by Druid Roxors ...and results would come from some individuals who are not well versed in the rulles of the game.That's a fear of something from which dictatorship rises. Most people have NO idea of politics (ME TOO!) and are allowed to vote. And that's in RL !
Druid Roxors 07-28-04, 06:27 AM	Originally posted by Dawnlord That's a fear of something from which dictatorship rises. Most people have NO idea of politics (ME TOO!) and are allowed to vote. And that's in RL ! Yeah, you vote for people who are well versed in all respects. Mr A republican and B Democrat are both politicians and/or economists/etc, either one your choose is going to be a good choice. Even if you choose by who is the "Coolest looking" you are not choosing an ignorant fool. They will shape your Country's future, NOT YOU. And read my last post. The general populace will name "Representatives" which have experience and knowledge. Thats the way democracy works, thats what I am proposing.
Dawnlord 07-28-04, 06:34 AM	Like Mr. Bush? *cough*
Druid Roxors 07-28-04, 06:54 AM	Yeah, a bright man with a personal quarrel against Sadam Hussein. Set in by his father... In any case, we are talking about senators and the like. Where a group decides.
Hatzinger 07-28-04, 07:36 AM	Druid, having representatives was just a helping-tool of 19th century democracies. Distances to travel were long in these times and people were technically not able to participate all in political processes. Thus, the middle-man was born. Today, especially in the COCO, we do not longer need middlemen. In Scandinavia, they for example had online-elections for the district governements last summer. And it worked fine. As long as it is technically possible, direct democracy is the better thing, imo. The problem with "incompetent average men" is what democracy is all about - even they get a chance to influence their own destiny. Therefore, i am for an oligarchy in the COCO. Competence is indicated by (Druid, i stole this idea from you) a higher-lvl character and presence on the COCO-boards for some time. But lets get back to the current discussion: Do you think that we need to do something about the senate?
freemoody 07-28-04, 08:34 AM	VIVA LA REVOLUTION!!! Down with this corrupt system that oppresses us all. Rise up and live with dignity. Take your future in your own hands. Now's the time brothers and sisters. Take this opportunity for freedom and run with it. :fight!:
Ashenai 07-28-04, 09:07 AM	Could we please abstain from real-life politics on these boards? Thanks.
Hatzinger 07-28-04, 09:33 AM	we were not talking about politics, but about political systems. (...that may or may not compare to the COCO and thus give us guidances.) [EDIT:] ... hours later... oh, you might have been talking about the bush statement... Sorry. :D Freemoody, keep on cheering. This is exactly what we are about to do, if the senate-members are not able to pull themselves together.
Aramil Dunskar 07-28-04, 01:49 PM	I think that we should do something about the senate, but we should definatly not give power to every single person, becuase like druid said it could take months to decide once stupid issue. *Puts in his 2cp* -AD
Magagumo 07-28-04, 02:39 PM	I was once on the Council of Elders, and that was alright, but it seemed more like a system of titles than elected responsibilities (we were the first to run fights, and thus we became the "Elders) I understood Cat, Jindl, and ToK's points when they trimmed it down to 5; reserving the positions for those who upheld standard board responsibilties (Pairings & Polls- Cat, Jindl, & ToK; World design- Ethendril; [Something important]- Motherbast *embarassed grin*) I think the greatest issue we have right now is that some Elders have personal issues with their peers, and these conflicts often runover into rule debats and the like. Now, I respect everyone here, and I would hate to see somebody leave- but we're currently undergoing "forced diplomacy"- where Elders are told to place nice but rarely do. Frankly, these differences need to be resolved, because you Elders are setting the example for all the "young" members of this group. Everytime you initate a personal attack on a fellow member, jump onto a soapbox and rail about a personal gripe, or hammer a new (or Old) Pitlord for mistakes in a fight, the rest of us are watching, and some are getting the wrong ideas on how to act. Trust me guys, we all respect and appreciate the work you do, and without your dedication, this place would not function. Nevertheless, with this great power comes the responsibility to be excellent role models. So before you post an angry comment or repeat that well-worn statement one more time, remember that with each post you (or any of us) makes, we are establishing the tone and appearance of the COre COliseum. So will we resemble a disorganized group of petty, argumentative min/maxers? Or should we be viewed as a welcoming, open community of clever, well-reasoned tacticians? I believe you know the right answer, gentlemen, so let's do our damndest to make it happen. :) :tiphat:
MotherBast 07-28-04, 04:38 PM	First of all, everyone is confusing the Senate with the GMs. It is the GMs who are arguing, not the Senate. They are two seprate bodies. I, and Eth, are NOT GMs. (and Mag, the reason I don't have a 'job' yet is because CAT doesen't think I should have any "power" over any portion of the COCO, due to our differing ideas. He is still searching for the "right job" for me.) I think the problem with the Senate is that 3 of its 5 members are also GMs. If the Senate was changed at all, I would suggest simply replacing those 3 positions with NON-GMs. If I had to vote for 3, my votes would be Snark, Mag, and LLMC. All Elders, and all former senate members, and all have drastacly different outlooks on the rules, alowing for more variety in the Senate. Making the senate larger, or making more open polls, is not the answer. See, every poll used to be open. The entire reason we created the senate is because that system caused continus delays and problems. So, the senate was created to expediate and simplfy the decision process. When it was created, its members were picked by MO, who at that time was the only authorative figure in the COCO. Now we have 3 GMs, who were picked when the COCO became its own board. These 3 GMs are servents of the Wiz-O moderators, not the members of the COCO, so even if you don't like them haveing the positions they hold, you can't change it. They were not chosen by us, and can not be removed by us. They are doing a job. So, CAT, TOK, and JINDL will always be the only GMs, (unless MO comes back), and no vote will ever change that. The senate, however, is a seprate body. I think it should become moreso, by haveing members who are not GMs. Still, the Senate only votes when the GMs tell them too. So Hat, since your real problem is with the GMs, and their disputes, I'm afraid changing the senate would not help. As a matter of fact, CAT is not a fan of the senate and if it came to makeing it larger, the GMs would probably simply disband it and make all the decisions themselves.
Moherajikuyx 07-29-04, 05:04 AM	2x
Moherajikuyx 07-29-04, 05:09 AM	Hi people! This is intriguing indeed, by an anthropological point of view. I come here only to write memories of an ancient past. At that time as it was said, I was the only authoritative feagure: as a matter of fact I did one of the most talked after (and fought after!) decisions of the CoCo (it wasn't the CoCo yet): the half pre-memorization. This move pushed into the minds of the fellow participants the fear of the dictature, even though not so obviously (no one ever told it to me, nor many thought it clearly), and the senate was born at more or less the same time. And, but this is my opinion only, I believe that there was a cause line among the two events: I think that it was born to defend the CoCo from the risk of dictature. Which is quite fine: even though at the end my decision proved more or less worthy - it's still there - I think that the fear of dictature alone, even with no real causes or risks, is enough to make such a decision acceptable! It didn't offend me that persons feared I could become a dictator: I knew I wouldn't, but how could they know? So, I accepted the senate with no difficulties at all. Also, sharing the responsibility, after such an effort - you should read the discussions! - was gladly accepted. Now, back to the present. The matters are a bit different it seems, but still it appears that fears of dictature, or at least oligarchy, are there. What do the actual authoritative figures believe, is my question: are the fears enough to make them willingly concede power? Or do they believe elseway? Is the board mature enough to pass from republic to democracy? Or is the passage period not concluded yet? Is there an acceeptable point in the midde? On another hand, the gms aren't servants of the wizos! Lol! It's a hard work I assure you, I've been one. Don't spoil their efforts people.
Moherajikuyx 07-29-04, 05:12 AM	3x :-|
LLMadCow 07-29-04, 09:17 AM	If I remember correctly, one of the major reasons for the Senate, formerly the Council of Elders, was to be able to get a quick and educated vote out to the board. Instead of forcing a vote of 20 - 50 people we could vote between the 8 of us and only push a poll if we got all tied up. I was one of the people who pushed for a larger senate for a more balanced point of view and also an EVEN number of people so that if we were actually DIVIDED on an issue it was something that should be voted on by the entirety of the CoCo. As I look at how everything is unfolding, I can see two, solid possible solutions: 1. A return to the original size of the Senate. It may not be as quick and efficient, but it offers more balance. 2. Stick with the size of the Senate, but turn their vote into a 'Temporary Fix' and force EVERY decision to go to a discussion and vote. That we have something that 'Works' for the time being and if the CoCo members are upset, or dare I say outraged, they can all veto the decision of the senate. The last thing I will mention is this: Votes in the Senate should not occur without open and posted discussion. I have seen votes in the past where there was not open discussion, people 'shooting from the hip' and people having to turn around and say 'I want to change my vote'. Discussion would be a place where EVERYONE could chime in and put in their two cents and the Senators could actually be REPRESENTATIVES of the desires of the common man and what he wants. They would still have the option to vote as they see fit, but would have to know that it might bring dissension. The great thing about having a discussion is that people get to hear the other side of things and no one is caught off guard. The most recent 'incident' would have turned into - 'Oh, so we are going to put this to a vote? Okay, but his is how I feel ... blah blah blah, yackity shmackity' and so on as opposed to 'WHO HAD A SECRET VOTE!?!?'
Hatzinger 07-29-04, 10:36 AM	OK, thanks to you all for clarifying a few points. MB - i never knew what the meaning of "GM" was; now i know - Thank you. I have a question. IF we would want to increase the senate in size (why was it downsized anyway?), then how do we technically do it? Does MO do this? (Glad you are back, MO.) Or is it enough that many players demand it and then the GMs do it? Or does the senate itself decide it and elect new members?
Tellish_of_Ket 07-29-04, 11:07 AM	My words of wisdom? I think CoCo is gonna do just fine with the senate we have. One thing i don't want to see is to have it increased simply to counter an individual and select members to vote "against" certain members. This does not solve anything. But then again, neither do secret collaborations. I turst MB and Eth very much and i'm sure they had very good reasons for their vote. I also know they have nothing but the best of intentions for the CoCo. I would hope that everyone has learned a valuable lesson from this. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. And that one good deed, is worth a thousand good intentions. What happened nearly destroyed CoCo, the Senate and all that some of us has worked very hard to uphold...the integrity of fairness, despite their "good intentions". Mo's life work could have come to a complete end as a result of the fighting that ensued and one thing i don't think ANYONE will tolerate and that is a "coup" by the general populace either. Let's try getting along first, then try to fix what may be broken. Old wounds need to heal first, and i can assure you that if this happens again, those with the "intentions" will find themselves in hell they've created along the way. -ToK
Dawnlord 07-30-04, 07:33 AM	I don't think the Senate is a good thing how it is at the moment. Make these minor changes and everyone will be satisfied: Let there be 6 Senators. EVEN NUMBER ! 4:2 or higher majority for decisions, else open poll. Make open polls 1 week open to prevent lengthy discussions. It's no big deal and would have major impact. Why? See argumentations above. And as a result decisions would be accepted with much less whining.
Tellish_of_Ket 07-30-04, 08:22 AM	Changes are being talked about and discussed. Hope this elates many fears that things will stay same-old/same-old. -ToK
Aramil Dunskar 07-30-04, 10:36 AM	Originally posted by Dawnlord I don't think the Senate is a good thing how it is at the moment. Make these minor changes and everyone will be satisfied: Let there be 6 Senators. EVEN NUMBER ! 4:2 or higher majority for decisions, else open poll. Make open polls 1 week open to prevent lengthy discussions. It's no big deal and would have major impact. Why? See argumentations above. And as a result decisions would be accepted with much less whining. You cannot have an even number in the senate just because there is the chance of having a 3:3 vote........ *Drops in another 2cp*
LLMadCow 07-30-04, 10:57 AM	Originally posted by Aramil Dunskar You cannot have an even number in the senate just because there is the chance of having a 3:3 vote........ Well, the point of having a senate with an even number is the higher possibility of ties; either the issue passes with a 2:1 vote or it goes to be voted on by all of the members. What we are looking at is a return to more power in the hands of the general populace. POWER TO THE PEOPLE