Main site (German)   |    HighlanderMagic.info
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
Login with username, password and session length
14567 Posts in 1064 Topics- by 461 Members - Latest Member: clayer
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Democratic council, so hard?    (Read 18039 times)
dynagfx
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


View Profile
« on: 02-10-2015, 06:07:28 PM »

In times of social media, google-hangouts and daily emailnewsletters, the HL-Council and this forum seem mideval. From my POV the council members and their decisions are random. CMs (council members) dont represent the communities at all, but rather a group of ppl that somehow where choosen to rule... There are so many flaws in the current banlist and council system.

In a perfect state of HL-Magic:

HL COUNCIL:

The council would include only CM that have been voted by their own community.
To be a community you have to have at least 8 registered HL players. (just fill in your name and DCI no in a sheet of paper.)
Communities will have 1 CM. If there are a total of 100 HL players and community A has 12 players, their CM will have a vote worth 12%.
If a community doesnt want to have a CM, so be it.
CM votings are every 2 years.

Communication:
Why do the players have to come HERE to get the info they need about bannings? why no newsletter?

of course discussion is needed. But throwing arround with karmapoints is 1999.


Council decisions affect all HL players. They should be as democratic as they can be.

Regards,
A Dime.
Logged
pyyhttu
German Open Champion 2010
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 573


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: 03-10-2015, 09:00:25 PM »

Quote
Why do the players have to come HERE to get the info they need about bannings? why no newsletter?

You're right that no-one should visit the page just to check the changes on banlist. I'll construct a RSS-feed from highlandermagic.info. I'll inform here once ready.
Logged
dynagfx
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: 03-10-2015, 10:39:50 PM »

I am glad that at least this point caught your attention.
In the meanwhile, do you, as a council member, have anything to say about my criticism on the councils current governing approach?

Regards,

A. Dime
Logged
Tiggupiru
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: 03-10-2015, 11:16:33 PM »

The problem with pure democratic system is huge upkeep cost. I currently reside in a city where there is no LGS. I live about an hour away from three cities that hold tournaments regularly. In what group would I identify as? Am I allowed to be part of one? Are you part of the community if you play once in six months? Once a year? Is the community still alive if LGS does not arrange tournaments? How often those stores would need to hold up tournaments? There are loads of little problems associated with this.

It sounds awesome in theory, but I don't think this is feasible to execute. I also feel like the improvements would not outweigh the current system even if we would find a way to agree about everything. I do not mind the council. I mean, some of their choices can sometimes feel a little random but at the very least, council members will hear from players when they are not happy and probably sometimes when they are. It's not like you are not getting your message heard. Discussions will flare up here regularly and if you feel something isn't getting the attention it deserves, start a thread and people will respond. I do agree that council could be a little more transparent about their businesses, would ease a lot of minds if people could see that they are actively thinking about banned list and such.
Logged
dynagfx
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: 04-10-2015, 12:09:40 AM »

Thanks for your input. I agree, to establish a new democratic council needs some planning.
I think anyone who is playing HL, even if its irregularly, should just "register" (name and dci) in any community once and may switch at any time. I am sure this can be managed easily with an exel sheet.

Even if you "don't mind" the council. I think its a suboptimal solution.
Not a single community has an influence on the decisions which are being made. To me some choices are controverse, even more when votings are not public. This gives me the impression of an unbalance of power, emphasized by the lack of a controlling institution.

You may find this too political, but thats my opinion.
« Last Edit: 04-10-2015, 12:39:31 AM by dynagfx » Logged
Tiggupiru
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: 04-10-2015, 12:47:03 AM »

Yeah. The "I don't mind" was my way of saying "I know the current system has it's flaws but I prefer it over the alternatives". I get what you are saying here and I wouldn't even mind giving this kind of process a go if there are people willing to compile those excel sheets and most of the little kinks were fixed.

However, the way I see this going is that I feel that choices could become more random than they are currently. The city I used to live has a robust HL - fan base. They love the format and there is relatively huge tournament held every year by one of the community members. A lot of the people in that town have HL decks but LGS there has no interest of running HL tournaments. They could easily become a big community if this system were implemented but if most of their views are due to one annual tournament, their votes could be really weird. We could see very bizarre cards on those watchlists if we just have a democratic vote.

Again, that might not be the worst thing ever. Hell, might even be exciting. The thing is, implementing this change has a chance to make HL chaotic for a good time. When right now, the reins are firmly in place and no complete overhauls are happening. It is very brave for the community to take that kind of risk unless the format is in dire straits. Also, losing the council would cost us clear ambassadors of the format. What I mean by that is it would become much harder for content creators like Marshall Sutcliffe to contact German HL - representative for an interview. This might not be much of a problem, but on the off-chance that someone high enough in the food chain would want to maybe contact our representative to give HL more exposure we might be hindering ourselves a little. Communication between different HL - formats (Canadian, Australian and us) would also become rather hard. I like the possibility of the three of us working together on some level, maybe even eventually forming a single format to maximize player base and that would become harder with something like 20 people in the "council".
Logged
berlinballz
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 70


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: 04-10-2015, 09:50:10 AM »

I really hate to have to bring up this comparison. But recent human history has shown that trying to force full democracy into nondemocratic systems that worked alright has led to a lot of unpleasent results (see war etc). While I know that the metaphor has holes, the council in my opinion is by far not dictatorish enough to ask for a complete overthrow of a system that has worked for years, requires a sizeable level of voluntary time invested and a level of knowledge somewhat guaranteed by the other council members.
All that said, I would still love for at least one member of the council to be someone voted in by the community. Regarding the look of the forum, complaining is not gonna do the job. Finding someone with enough time and knowledge to improve the forum design and putting them in touch with the people in charge might be a better idea.

One other thing: Everybody please come to MGM 4 on November 7th in Berlin and face the toughest competition there is in HL. Thx.
Logged
MacGyver
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: 04-10-2015, 01:10:46 PM »

I also don't like all of the bannings, the council did, but I think it's still the best option we got.

Only one idea:
Rather than a democratically elected council (which is in my opinion complete nonsense and some reasons were already brought up here), I would prefer some kind of grassroots democracy (direct democracy).  Instead of a representative democracy, I would like to have the council do the work they already do (unsalaried, don't forget that) and when there are banning decisions they present a list of cards with some statements why the should be banned or not. Then they can just ask the community directly what they want and let them decide. If you want democracy there is no solution which is more democratic than asking the players directly. So for instance, every forum-member with a DCI-number is allowed to vote here in the forum or on an other more suitable platform.


Logged
W0lf
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 117


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: 05-10-2015, 04:08:09 AM »

The system is not that flawed, the problem are the people in the hl council who just do a bad job (cards like academy and fastbond legal,  wtf).
So yeah if it would be possible to remove them by using a more democratic system we should give it a try.
Logged
Bat
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 21


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: 05-10-2015, 12:54:29 PM »

Well the reason to unban Academy and Fastbond was to give the non existing combo archetype a boost. This was in my opinion succesful. And you dont see Fastbond/Academy decks winning every tournament left and right. UWR and 4c Blood are still dominating most of the tournaments.

Let the next MGM and HL Cup pass, then we will see if Combo Decks are destroying everything, or if it is just another tier-1 deck.

« Last Edit: 05-10-2015, 04:30:57 PM by Bat » Logged
Silberhase
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 53


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: 05-10-2015, 04:57:13 PM »

Academy decks are underpresented in our Meta. With the right building and the right pilot they can be really strong. The reason why everyone is playing uwr/4c blood is because its easier to build a deck with all good cards in 3 or 4 colours.
Logged
berlinballz
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 70


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: 05-10-2015, 06:51:10 PM »

It might also be because playing decks that actually interact with the opponent is more fun.
Logged
Tiggupiru
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: 05-10-2015, 07:20:53 PM »

It might also be because playing decks that actually interact with the opponent is more fun.

I don't know, decks that kill your opponent are pretty fun too.
Logged
MacGyver
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: 05-10-2015, 10:15:45 PM »

So, regarding to my suggestion:
Let the Community decide what's healthy for the meta or fun/not fun to play against! Let everyone vote for or against academy.
Logged
ChristophO
HL Council Member
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 324


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: 05-10-2015, 11:32:59 PM »


McGyver:
Having member voting for bans/unbans every 3 Months is REALLY REALLY bad. Basically whenever a card gets unbanned we are either stupid and make a horrendous mistake or some idiot thinks that we did - the worst you can do to the format is asking the community and then have a flip flop situation were card frequently swtich from banned to unbanned and back.  But this is exactly what the community wants with card often leading  both the "dont ban  AND please ban the following cards questionare" that Vazdru often does during HL GPs. Every change will cause controversy. Once a cards gets banned it needs to be gone for 2 years at least. This is also why I am not convinced of a SFM unban. Players were raging hard until it got banned and the same people most likely will rage again once it is back in the format.



 
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

 

Wizards of the Coast® and Magic: the Gathering® are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc. (WotC).
Magic: the Gathering®, the five mana-symbols, the tap-symbol and most cards and artworks are © WotC.

© 2004-2007 by connexo websolutions   |   Imprint